PeterDavid.net

But he's taking a stand on principle! Doesn't matter what his principles are, if he's a principled man, he's okay! Because he has principles!

This and other fallacies, news at five.

Bush will continue to hit new lows as long as Congress bends over.

Pure politics on both sides of the aisle, unfortunately. The Republicans want to control the growth into the middle income groups, but are willing to cut off the poor kids to force it. The Democrats wanted to force them to vote it down/veto it so they can say "Look at the evil, heartless Republicans", rather than compromise and put forth a version that deals just with the low income families.

Neither side is looking good to me at the moment. This should be an easy bill to pass.

Pure politics on both sides of the aisle, unfortunately. The Republicans want to control the growth into the middle income groups, but are willing to cut off the poor kids to force it. The Democrats wanted to force them to vote it down/veto it so they can say "Look at the evil, heartless Republicans", rather than compromise and put forth a version that deals just with the low income families.

Neither side is looking good to me at the moment. This should be an easy bill to pass.

Darwin never applied his principles to Congress. Considering Congress has the shape-shifting ability of an amoeba, sadly, it's not likely they'll grow a spine any time soon.

The fact that the (current) schip program might be suspended because of this is ridiculous. That said the democrats are nowhere near innocent on this one. They waited until the program was days away from expiring to present anything to the president. The president asked (on a nationally televised press conference) for a clean extension of the current program, and offered a compromise version with a $5 billion dollar increase. They passed a version that has a $35 billion dollar increase (some accounts say $60 billion over 5 years), and with redefinitions of “child” and “poor”. Child is now anyone 25 and under, and poor is $82,600 a year and under. Does that seem resonable?

This whole thing is just silly and would have been avoided if a straight reauthorization of the current program was passed.

John said what I was going to say.
When did 82k a year become poor? When did a 25yo become a child? Politics from one side and the other.

Makes a good soundbite to say that Bush vetoed the Chips program, but the facts say a little different.

I concur with Jeff. When you read what Peter posted you want to say, "Bad Bad Bushie". But if you step back and look at it, its just an expansion of publicly paid health care into an income bracket where you really have to ask if they need it or want it.

Flat 82k/year definition? Somehow I doubt that. Have you read this in the text of the bill, or in a summary of the bill by a newspaper columnist/blogger? I don't have time now or I'd go searching for it.

The current definitions are something like 10k without children, and increasing a particular amount for every child the family has. Increasing each number makes sense to me, because it's probably time to increase them. Changing it to a flat rate for everyone regardless of the number of children doesn't make sense to me.

82k sounds high...but what if the family has 10 children?

And I also somehow doubt that all 25 yos get defined as a child. I suspect only those who are 'dependents' are. You know, those who are living at home with parents and not filing their own tax return.

So the people complaining all over the web about the 25 yo earning 82k himself/herself and being called a poor child is ridiculous. They wouldn't be considered a dependent of their parents.

There's a current limit on age now. I don't know what it is. 21? 23? Raising it to 25 with the average age at marriage going up as it is doesn't sound out of line to me.

Now...if the text of the bill actually does say that all 25 yos are considered children, whether or not they are dependents. And if combined with this it really does say anyone making 82k a year is poor, regardless of the number of children. If both of these things are true...then I will agree that the Congressional Democrats are smoking weed.

But I am willing to lay a large amount of money down on the table and bet that it ISN'T true. And that those who are saying it is are either grossly misinformed, or lying.

Off to search for the text as I have a couple minutes now.

John,

Your point about the $82,600 sounding high made me go and look into it. First as to where I heard $82,600 from it was the president, but I should have looked more into it anyway.

Here is how it stands right now; the bill makes anyone at 300% of the poverty level (or lower)eligible. That would currently be $60,000 for a family of four, however New York state asked that number to be moveb to 400%, ($82,600) and all that needs for that to happen under the bill is for the department of health and human services to say ok, not a new bill, so the $82,600 is a little suspect, but not if the democrats take the white house and thus take over HHS.

Now that $60,000 a year for a family of four is, in my opinion both high and low. How can that be you might ask? Well, the bill and most bills for that matter do not take into account geographical factors. $60,000 a year in NYC is far less then $60,000 a year in rural Alabama.

As for the hypothetical family of 10 children you mention, I would be torn on that. I wouldn’t want the children to suffer for acts of the parents. On the other hand who in their right mind has 10 kids if they can’t support them?

Well, as usual, this is just more of Bush lying. Yeah, I said it. And I'm not alone. He's ticked off his fellow Republicans so much that the Democrats didn't even have to reply to his "explanation" that included the $83,000 figure.

But supporters of the bill immediately seized on that claim and said it was not true. Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, a loyal supporter of the Bush White House, responded angrily to the president during a Capitol Hill news conference.

"Are families of four making $83,000 going to get benefit(s) under this? Not unless the administration agrees to it. This bill does not call for that high level of expenditure," Hatch said.

Hatch explained that the only way such families would get SCHIP coverage would be if their states petitioned the administration for a waiver — just like under the current program. When New York, made such a petition, the Bush administration turned it down.

The new law would be the same, Hatch said, and even if the White House were willing to grant waivers, such families would make up just a tiny percentage of those eligible.

"To call this a step toward one-size-fits-all, government-mandated health care is just political in my view," he said. "This is a block grant. States have tremendous power over this bill — not total power, but power."

Hatch said he found the veto difficult to understand, and senior Republican Sen. Charles Grassley said the same thing.

"Every effort was made to bring the administration into the process, but it decided to veto the bill, I think, before it was even written. From their position, it was either my way or the highway. Well, that's not how the legislative process works," the Iowa senator said.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14980830

What? You don't like the liberal NPR? How about the McClatchy news service?

President Bush claims that the bipartisan bill to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program "would result in taking a program meant to help poor children and turning it into one that covers children in households with incomes up to $83,000 a year."

That's not true.

The bill maintains current law. It limits the program to children from families with incomes up to twice the federal poverty level — now $20,650 for a family of four, for a program limit of $41,300 — or to 50 percentage points above a state's Medicaid eligibility threshold, which varies state to state.

States that want to increase eligibility beyond those limits would require approval from Bush's Health and Human Services Department, just as they must win waivers now. The HHS recently denied a request by New York to increase its income threshold to four times the poverty level — the $82,600 figure that Republican opponents of the bill are using.

Under current law, nineteen states have won waivers from these income limits. The biggest was granted to New Jersey, which upped its income limit to 350 percent of the federal poverty level, or $72,275 for a family of four in 2007. The expanded SCHIP program retains the waiver option under federal discretion; it doesn't change it.

The president also claims that the proposal would cause some families to drop private coverage and enroll their children in the cheaper SCHIP program.

That's true.

Peter Orszag, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, said that was inevitable to some degree when any government program expanded. The CBO estimates that the legislation would attract 5.8 million new enrollees by 2012. Of them, 3.8 million would be uninsured and eligible under current requirements, and 2 million probably would have had private coverage before the expansion.

That's a rate of about 1 in 3 new enrollees dropping private insurance. "We don't see very many other policy options that would reduce the number of uninsured children by the same amount without creating more" dropouts from private insurance, Orszag said.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/20169.html

What do you know, he was actually right about one thing.

Take the time and do some reading instead of just listening to the President's sound bites. At least, that's what I learned before the Iraq War started.

the 82K is a fallacy kids. It was something that was suggested ONCE by the governor of New York having to do with the poverty line in Manhattan. The Feds (and the bill) have already said no to this. HOWEVER since it has been said then it will be used to prove how useless the program is.

25 is the age at which most adults come off their parents health insurance even in they are in school at the time. That is were that number got plucked out of the air. Again nothing to do with the actual bill's wording but something someone MIGHT try in the future.

This bill provided money for children for preventative health care. Things that could be done at a much lower rate to the tax payer than all the emergency room visits that the tax payers will now be paying for. Controlling some poor kid's asthma by doctor's visits and some medications is a hella of a lot cheaper than taking the kid to the emergency room because the kid can't breath and there is no insurance but the emergency room has GOT to take them under the law.

Here's the actual text of the bill for those who wish to peruse.

To me it seems it says that states that propose to provide funds to families higher than 300% of the poverty line will get limited federal matching funds. Suggesting that there is some flexibility by state on how high to go. But 300% is specifically mentioned in the text of the bill. But poverty is not being redefined. So those who are saying that it says 82k is poor, aren't semantically correct. It's 300% of poor.

I couldn't find any reference to age, but there's a lot of text to read, so I read just the summary.

"(Sec. 110) Places a limitation on the matching rate for states that propose to cover children with effective family income exceeding 300% of the federal poverty line."

This is in the Summary of the bill at the link above, but when you go to the full text of the final bill, Section 110 is missing. Goes straight from 109 to 111. So it wasn't in the final bill.

As for the hypothetical family of 10 children you mention, I would be torn on that. I wouldn’t want the children to suffer for acts of the parents. On the other hand who in their right mind has 10 kids if they can’t support them?

1) People who aren't in 'their right minds' or those who are of below average intelligence.
2) People who don't believe in, or know about using effective birth control. (The latter not necessarily being synonymous with #1)

Pure politics on both sides of the aisle, unfortunately. The Republicans want to control the growth into the middle income groups, but are willing to cut off the poor kids to force it. The Democrats wanted to force them to vote it down/veto it so they can say "Look at the evil, heartless Republicans", rather than compromise and put forth a version that deals just with the low income families.

Neither side is looking good to me at the moment. This should be an easy bill to pass.

Maybe raising the income qualification was the only way to get any republican support, so the bill wouldn't be seen as a giveaway to minorities.

Why would they want to increase taxes on cigs? It would get to a point where smokers can't afford to pay for their habit and then you lost all the money you were getting from them to begin with.

This bill requires states to have an approved program, and based on that program, they get variable Federal assistance. The changes being made don't raise the bar, but it does make provisions for the states to do so. If they do, there's an eventual cap as to the amount of Matching Federal share they can get. I gather that it's also up to the states to define what constitutes a "child." It's been a while since I turned 18, but I know I could not afford health insurance on my own until I got my first real professional job at the age of 26. Until then, I had very, very basic coverage. Thankfully, I didn't need medical assistance. I don't know what I'd have done if I had.

As for whether $82K is "poor" or not, that's not the point of this bill. It's not help the poor...that's what Medicaid is for. This program is to cover those that make too much to qualify for Medicaid, but might not be able to afford good private health insurance. My family has a single income...mine...at just over $90K gross. We have a small 2 BR condo, a new van to cart the kids around in, and I drive a 17 year old Honda that we got cheap from a family member to work. We have a little credit card debt, but some big educational loans used to pay for law school. We have good insurance though work. After paying off all our utilities, car payment, mortgage, putting away a portion for property taxes, savings for the kids, and our normal savings, there's just enough for us to have a modest entertainment budget. Just barely. A faimly of 4, making just $8K less than us, will have to totally forgoe something that's considered essential to healthy living...savings, a good, safe car (van with that size family), education savings. From statistics available today, it would seem that a large number of those families sacrifice health insurance.

SCHIPS helps them out. It allows them to purchase a lower level of coverage and lends a hand with the rest. There's also significan evidence that families that don't get CHIPS assistance end up in the ER more often. This simply transfers the cost of providing these families with health care at a higher rate than the SCHIPS program costs. That $30 billion increase may very well reflect a net decrease in overall spending on healthcare.

If congress doesn't get this overturned, this will be the cause of the next round of GOP defeats to come.

"Why would they want to increase taxes on cigs? It would get to a point where smokers can't afford to pay for their habit and then you lost all the money you were getting from them to begin with."

For one, smokers add to health care costs. Don't argue this one with me...my family just lost a 60-year old grandmother to lung cancer who never smoked a day in her life, but worked around people that did, and has a grandfather with lung cancer who also never smoked, but his wife smoked for years.

Second, smokers have proven to be relatively price inelastic consumers. That means that their purchase habits basically don't react to price increases.

So, this tax provides a relatively stable supply of funds for at least the next 10-30 years, until the current crop of smokers start to quit/pass away. If new generations of consumers don't replace them, it's sort of a win/win. Funds will go down, but so will overall healthcare costs, because there are fewer smokers contributing to healthcare needs.

I loved Trent Lott's rationalization of the veto. If cigarettes are taxed even more, he argued, people will be less likely to smoke, and the money won't come in to help people who develop illnesses from smoking. Does the word "Duh" even appear in this guy's dictionary?

"As for the hypothetical family of 10 children you mention, I would be torn on that. I wouldn’t want the children to suffer for acts of the parents. On the other hand who in their right mind has 10 kids if they can’t support them?"
-------

"1) People who aren't in 'their right minds' or those who are of below average intelligence.
2) People who don't believe in, or know about using effective birth control. (The latter not necessarily being synonymous with #1)"

Why should we be paying for someone else's bad decisions? Procreation is not a decision to be taken lighty. If you can't afford to raise a child, don't spawn one - the world will go on just fine if you don't.

"Why should we be paying for someone else's bad decisions? Procreation is not a decision to be taken lighty. If you can't afford to raise a child, don't spawn one - the world will go on just fine if you don't."

That would be fine if all you were doing were punishing the parents. But more often than not, the kids do suffer.

Yes, that's true. That is why sterilization needs to become something to consider.

Nothing about this decision should be surprising considering what a consistently sleazy weasel Bush has been. His remark the other day about how everyone has access to healthcare because they can go to the emergency room tells what an elitist f@#& he is and how little regard he has for people not in his (and his backers) economic strata.

I loved Trent Lott's rationalization of the veto. If cigarettes are taxed even more, he argued, people will be less likely to smoke, and the money won't come in to help people who develop illnesses from smoking. Does the word "Duh" even appear in this guy's dictionary?

I loved Jon Stewart's riposte: Then we'll get the poor kids hooked on smoking so then that way they'll be paying for their own health care.

Everytime you think Bush can't hit a new low...
He surprises you.

Bush's career path has been one of setting lower and lower expectations to meet. And just think: We have a full year of us watching him lowering the bar even further!

Posted by campchaos

Darwin never applied his principles to Congress. Considering Congress has the shape-shifting ability of an amoeba, sadly, it's not likely they'll grow a spine any time soon.

Twain originally said it about school boards, but it fits well in other places*, so I'll paraphrase:

God made an idiot for practice. Then He made a Congress."

Posted by Tom Saltz at October 5, 2007 09:46 AM
Why would they want to increase taxes on cigs? It would get to a point where smokers can't afford to pay for their habit and then you lost all the money you were getting from them to begin with.

I find it difficult to believe that raising taxes on something that as of Oct 1, here in Minnesota, is illegal to do in public to fund this bill is completely ludicrous and when that money starts to fall short who will foot the bill?

Government run health care may not be ideal, but it's certainly better than the corporate run health care we currently have.

Screw Bush, the Republicans, the Democrats, their apologists and their cheerleaders. I still say "us" sometimes when referencing the Democrats, but I registered myself as an independent some time ago now. Both parties are making me sick at this point and games like this are a perfect example of why.

I find it difficult to believe that raising taxes on something that as of Oct 1, here in Minnesota, is illegal to do in public to fund this bill is completely ludicrous and when that money starts to fall short who will foot the bill?

Even if, for the sake of arguement, we assume that not one red cent will be collected in cigarette taxes to pay for this, I still think it's worth it. The money goes into preventative care that will save much larger amounts that would be spent on emergency room visits. People without health insurance are unlikely to be able to pay for that, either. Therefore, the taxpayers would end up footing the bill, regardless. It's just smaller on this end.

At this point, we have the Dems trying to make the Republicans look bad, and the President determined to use up every last drop of his political capital before leaving office. So it REALLY sucks to be a Republican lawmaker, because Bush is on the political equivalent of a kamikaze run...he doesn't want to leave office popular, he wants to leave office having forced through as much stuff of his and blocked as much stuff NOT his as possible. Popularity is useless currency when you can't run for a third term, after all, and Cheney's not running either, so Bush doesn't have to worry about keeping his veep looking good.

Meanwhile, the Democrats probably know that it's pointless to do stuff that makes Bush look bad at this time, but hope for as many Republican congresscritters to get caught in the splash as possible. Every time a Senator votes not to end debate or every time a Representative votes to not override a veto out of party loyalty, they hand their next election opponent another bullet for the gun. Sure, it can backfire in some cases, if the Republicans can spin it so that it's the Dems' fault for putting up an unpassable bill, but SCHIP's not going to be one of those cases, I'm thinking. "Think of the children" rallies people a LOT better than "socialized medicine booga booga" these days.

Hmmmm. Bush doesn't really care about the poor children or he would have signed the bill with a written statement that it does not apply to any middle class families.

82,000$ may NOT be a lot, depending on where you are. 82K in upstate New York is a far cry from Long Island, Manhattan, San Fran, or suburban CT. Our household makes more than that, and at $3 a pop for school lunches, times four kids, is $60 a week, or $240 a month, which is ridiculous, and we don't qualify for reduced price (there's no sliding scale, it's either $3 or 40 cents). Therefore, my kids don't get them. Add in gas at $2.80 a gallon, you're adding another 400-500$ a month in travel costs. Add in a 20% surcharge on groceries for living in a "high income" area (I'm not kidding, it really works this way. High welfare cities have cheaper corporate prices); there goes another $700 a month - not counting eating out. We pay $350 a month in Health Insurance. Add in a moderate home with $500 a month just in taxes, and you can see how 82,000 flies out the window before you even know you made it. I'm up to $2,000 a month already without talking about rent or mortgage, car payments, utilities, Holidays, savings, or kids' clothes. Now imagine if you ever wanted to see a movie (6 people x $9 x soda x popcorn = $115 for ONE movie) or take a vacation... If you have no insurance, one, just ONE (Lamictal) of my kid's medications is $600 (six hundred) a prescription. Imagine if every doctor visit had a $150 co-pay.

Sadly, what seemed a huge fortune 20 years ago buys you squat in the 21st century.
May the ghosts of children dying from lack of health care haunt bush (I won't capitalize that) and his cronies to their graves.

Posted by: John at October 5, 2007 09:21 AM

As for the hypothetical family of 10 children you mention, I would be torn on that. I wouldn’t want the children to suffer for acts of the parents. On the other hand who in their right mind has 10 kids if they can’t support them?

1) People who aren't in 'their right minds' or those who are of below average intelligence.
2) People who don't believe in, or know about using effective birth control. (The latter not necessarily being synonymous with #1)

John, you're forgetting those of us who foster and adopt - that's how I'm up to 5. If more people took in one extra, the rest of us wouldn't have to take in so many.

Why should we be paying for someone else's bad decisions? Procreation is not a decision to be taken lighty.

I look forward to hearing you advocate cutting funding to the Iraq occupation in proportion to the increased cost and stupidity involved.

It's times like these I'm proud to be Canadian.

Bush looks after his friends at Big Tobacco and Big Medicine and somehow thinks a ham-fisted speech about the 'Socialized Medicine' Boogeyman will cover his tracks. A society should be about people looking after people, and not about letting big business decide the fates of others.

I'm sorry, but this is looking more and more like a creeping attempt to institute a national health care program, overseen and run by the same people who 10 or so years ago, were writing checks like money was water. Of course water is getting scarce here in Georgia. Canada and England are perfect examples of why we don't need Nationalized healthcare. 15-20 years ago, my parents were still able to barter services for medical care...after that became a no-no (made so by the government that now seeks to control the same billion dollar industry, prices went up, insurence became a must, and nobidy thinks about what the TRUE cost of medical care is...But say POOR peopel , especially kids, don't have insurence coverage, and "OH NO! Bush is evil!!!" No blame on the idiots who brought millions of kids into the world with out any means to support or care for them. No, they's just poor. They's can't help it. Stick 'em back on the gov't plantation. It ain't their fault they don't know no better!

Canada and England are perfect examples of why we don't need Nationalized healthcare....

Stick 'em back on the gov't plantation.

I didn't realize Canada and England separated children from their parents and sold them as commodities. It's a wonder some brave successor to Rosa Parks like you hasn't spoken up before.

"I look forward to hearing you advocate cutting funding to the Iraq occupation in proportion to the increased cost and stupidity involved."

I'm sure the irony of Bush having no trouble funding endeavors to take lives rather than save them has escaped someone as irony-free as you.

Bush doesn't care about poor children. The fact that he was willing to send them in poorly equipped indicates he doesn't care about our soldiers. But don't worry: If it's any consolation, while you're busy coming up with every knee-jerk defense of him you can, consider that he very likely doesn't give a damn about you, either.

Done with you now.

PAD

Why should we be paying for someone else's bad decisions? Procreation is not a decision to be taken lighty.

I look forward to hearing you advocate cutting funding to the Iraq occupation in proportion to the increased cost and stupidity involved.

I'm sure the irony of Bush having no trouble funding endeavors to take lives rather than save them has escaped someone as irony-free as you.

Bush doesn't care about poor children. The fact that he was willing to send them in poorly equipped indicates he doesn't care about our soldiers. But don't worry: If it's any consolation, while you're busy coming up with every knee-jerk defense of him you can, consider that he very likely doesn't give a damn about you, either.

I implied no defense of Bush, and you are literally inferring the cited "increased cost and stupidity" on the part of the Iraq occupation as a defense of him for reasons only you know.

Done with you now.

Some day you may go so far as to Start™ at which point I'm sure I'll learn what real trouble is.

"No blame on the idiots who brought millions of kids into the world with out any means to support or care for them."

I'm going to break a rule I've given myself, that being when a post really really pisses me off to wait for a while before responding. You might want to learn some of the situations before writing checks with your mouth that not just your butt but the rest of your damn body can't cash. See, my son is on the Pennsylvania CHIP program. When my wife got pregnant, we were pulling in sixty grand a year. By the time our son was born, due to downsizing at both our companies, we were at half that. That was six years ago. We've just now topped forty grand a year, and neither of our jobs offers benefits for children. Hell, her job doesn't even cover her. Throw into the mix that I spent two years taking care of dying parents and your attitude really, really pisses me off. I'm sure the sun is brightly shining on your lawn that's green because it's made of hundred dollar bills, but you know what? Shit happens to real people and real people end up with big problems. I'm so angry right now I won't even begin to address your either horrendous spelling or horrendous typing.

Sorry about the rant, everybody. Attitudes like that just really get my Irish up.

I tend to see this as another attempt to slip government control of the health care system under the door. Hillary care by increments as it were. And under the expanded system, ADULTS between 18 and 25 would also be eligible for this program. Adults should be able to decide for themselves about their health care needs, not the government.

And Peter, we agree on one thing. Congress IS fricken useless no matter which side of the political coin is in temporary control. We've reached that point in our country's history where the sheeple have learned to vote themselves "bread and circuses". And I have very little faith in them or the executive branch. The nice thing about the extremely low approval ratings for Congress and the President is that it indicates a basic distrust of government by the sheeple. Maybe things are as they should be in that reguard.

To Bobb Alfred: Note, there are certain benefits to people dying early (no, I'm not making fun of anyone who has died an untimely death). For one, the government doesn't have to pay out socialist security payments when they reach retirement age...a total win for the government. Secondly, all that money paid into Medicare is gone too since they made it to the finishing line too early to collect anything. The person's own health care provider took it in the shorts, not the government. They win again. And if you look at it from the government's point of view, living longer costs them waaaay more because of the last two subjects. You actually get some of your retirement money back, ditto with Medicare. This is also why the government doesn't give anyone full SS benefits at age 65 anymore. You'll get too much of your money back!

C. Schwehr: With all due dis-respect....fuck off. I don't know how much more crystal I can make this than I did in my last post...my family just lost a member...60 years young...we buried her on Thursday.

You can take all that money the government saved by the "untimely death" and shove it up your unsympathetic ass. I'll be sure to pass on to my sister-in-law, niece, and nephew that they can all stop crying because you see some good in the death of their beloved Nana.

Your lack of humanity appalls and disgusts me.

Bobb, you and your family have my sympathies and condolences. Just wish I could offer something more.

> Hillary care by increments as it were.

Given the money she receives from the health care industry to fund her campaign, don't hold your breath on this ever happening if she makes it into the White House again.

Bobb, sorry about your loss.

"Hillary care"
"sheeple"
"socialist security"

Does this kind of political rhetoric actually work? Does it contribute something to serious political discussion? Wouldn't it be simpler to say: "hey, I'm a libertarian, these are my positions, let's talk about it"?

You can argue the politics side all you want, but it comes down to morality: why is a child in foster care (or any situation where there is no or inadequate health coverage) not entitled to basic healthcare for a minimal quality of life? Medicaid is not the answer, people. Medicaid doesn't cover squat. Find a dentist that takes it. There was a case last year in MD where a child DIED because a tooth became infected, no dentist would take state aid, and the infection went to his brain. If your child needs to be put under anesthesia to do dental work, the anesthesia is not covered ($800 cash only). No psychiatrist (required for any behavior-modifying drug) will take State Aid. Insurances will not cover helmets for children whose seizures cause them to smash their heads. Insurance does not cover braces or special shoes ($400+ each time they're outgrown. A toddler can bankrupt you) so that the child can walk. Why does a nice clean kid living in a decent home have to sit for 6 hours or more at a Welfare clinic (or ER) with all kinds of crazy scum when ill or in pain, because it's the only place they're allowed to go under their insurance plan?

When did basic DIGNITY for fellow man require an act of Congress?

"When did basic DIGNITY for fellow man require an act of Congress?"

Because the question: whose responsibility it is to take care of the dignity, is a political question. The most extreme socialist position is that it is completely the responsibility of society (i.e. taxpayers) and its government; the most extreme libertarian position is that it is completely not the responsibilty of the government but rather a matter of choice for private individuals and organizations (like churches) to provide rgis dignity.. Mosdt people are somewhere in between.

And under the expanded system, ADULTS between 18 and 25 would also be eligible for this program. Adults should be able to decide for themselves about their health care needs, not the government.

Americans already accept socialist services. Why is it ok for the government to intervene in crimes and fires endangering 18 to 25 year olds -- or anyone -- but not health care?

"Sorry about the rant, everybody. Attitudes like that just really get my Irish up."

Hey, Sean, Listen up...My comments were not about people who have the world come crashing down on them and everythimg falls apart. As a matter of fact, my family of four and I are FINALLY seeing the light at the end of a VERY dark tunell. I was making good, not great money, and then I did some really stupid stuff that resulted in me loosing my $60K a year job, going to federal prison for 5 months, and being placed on probation for 3 years. THIS IS ALL MY FAULT, before you attempt to point that out. And that also makes my point. I lost my financial means to support my family, so I got a job scrubbing toilets at McD's. It sucked. But it came with health insurance. My wife, who had gone back to college to get her BA went back to work. The bad decisions I made forced us to make some other, more tough decisions. We were extremely lucky that no one in our family needed our help or care during all of this, and I am sorry that you lost family members during already dark times for your family. Again, my point is more to the people who continue to produce children partly because they know there is a government safty net beneath them. What is the solution, I don't know, but throwing good money after bad has yet to work. Please put your Irish back down. Oh, and sorry about the typing and spelling. Two things are happening. 1. My 5 yearold is attached to my lap whenever I am on the computer, and 2. I gradated form Georgia schools, and I do beleive our schools ranked 49 in the nation the year I graduated,dispite the fact that billions of dollars was thrown at educating us, so the fact that I am able to type at all is, indeed, a true miricle. I will, however, spellcheck for your benefit.

"I didn't realize Canada and England separated children from their parents and sold them as commodities. It's a wonder some brave successor to Rosa Parks like you hasn't spoken up before."

And to you, Mike. I see every day the way the government has subjagated whole families by providing free goods and services. Now before you light into me with your rightious indignation, I am for limited time help for people who are in need, bu a life time at the government teat is too much. I was on free lunch at school because my mther couldn't afford to send in the money for our food. I was on a program that provided juice, milk and cereal to our home. When our son was born, I was in the Navy, and didn't make much money, so my family went on WIC for a couple of months. I am not insensitive to the need for help, but at some point, people need to stand on their own two feet. If you have read the rest of my post, then you know what my family and I have been through in the past 2 years. People can bounce back from problems. My point about England and Canada was that their nationalized healthcare programs DON'T WORK!!! People die wating for services. Do you want that here? It all happens in little baby steps, then one day you end up with a government that dictats when you can water your lawn, when you can drive in certain lanes of traffic, an can send you to jail if your kid is late to school too many days. We are half way there now. If want all of that and more....
As for the Rosa Parks comment, what the hell? I', not even sure how to respond to that, so you get to be the witty, cleaver one today.

Sean, I apologize. I did spell check, but I did not post the corrected version. Excuse could follow, but what would te point be, really. I'll do better next time...

"gradated form Georgia schools, and I do beleive our schools ranked 49 in the nation the year I graduated,dispite the fact that billions of dollars was thrown at educating us"

Since I assume your parents were not rich enough to pay for private education for you, who would have paid for your education if the government didn't? Do you think they would have done a better job educating you? \or do you think the government should have spent less educating you? What would have happened to you had you been less educated?

"My point about England and Canada was that their nationalized healthcare programs DON'T WORK!!! People die wating for services."

How does the British and Canadian medical systems compare with the American system?

"can send you to jail if your kid is late to school too many days."

Who should be responsible for protecting abused or neglected kids if the government will not?

"My point about England and Canada was that their nationalized healthcare programs DON'T WORK!!! People die wating for services."

Um... could you give me specific examples of this? I live in Canada, am a politician in Ontario (part of my job is overseeing the local hospitals) and to my experience no one has died waiting for services.

Many of the complaints we have stem from the fact that we triage in the hospitals (your broken arm has to wait for the heart-attack victim) and that we don't have enough family doctors, mainly because they move to the more financially lucrative U.S. market where they can charge what they want. There is a waiting list for elective surgery, but anything life-threatening is taken care of before it becomes too serious. In my own family, my mother-in-law was recently diagnosed with breast cancer and had a tumor removed within a month of diagnosis.

Of course we have people grousing about our health care system, but who doesn't complain about anything when given the opportunity? I once overheard a woman argue with a nurse at an ER over the fact that someone with 'only' a heart murmur got in ahead of her strained calf muscle.

Americans seem to be cowed by fears of 'Socialized Medicine', because time and again you've been told that it's bad for your government to have a say in your health. But consider this: doesn't your government already have a say in your health by forcing you into a system where financial concerns trump quality of life?

I would agree that our national healthcare is not perfect but no one gets turned away, no one dies, because some big business jockey has decided that what was needed was not covered in some plan. I refute the belief that "people die wating for services". It is simply not true.

"I would agree that our national healthcare is not perfect but no one gets turned away, no one dies, because some big business jockey has decided that what was needed was not covered in some plan. I refute the belief that "people die wating for services". It is simply not true."

I was up in Canada visiting a retailer when his young son, who had been plagued by health issues, had to be rushed to the hospital for a recurrence of one of his conditions. As we waited to hear from the doctors who were working on the boy, the retailer told me that he was so grateful for the fact that the government covered medical costs. That if that were not the case, he would long ago have been driven into bankruptcy.

PAD

That if that were not the case, he would long ago have been driven into bankruptcy.

And let us all remember that when Bush and the GOP were reelected in 2004, the very first bill of significance they passed was one dealing with the [sarcasm] very pressing issue [/sarcasm] of bankruptcy reform, making it much harder for John Q. Citizen to declare Chapter 11 if they're financially fucked. The ostensible reason was to prevent the supposedly huge amount of dishonest borrowers from skipping out of their debts despite the fact that the vast majority of people who declare bankruptcy do so because of . . .

. . . wait for it . . .

. . . healthcare and medical costs/debts.

Sasha,

I'm not sure that the "vast majority" of people who declare bankruptcy do so because of the crushing debt that can come about due to medical problems. I know that it is the largest single cause (plurality), but I don't think it outstrips all other causes combined (majority).

Regardless, your point is still valid. It is another piece of hypocracy on the part of the current Adminstration. Especially since I've read that many people who file for bankruptcy typically dig themselves deeper into debt trying to do right by their creditors and attempting to keep from filing bankruptcy until they have no other choice.

Bobb, sorry about your family's loss.

"Um... could you give me specific examples of this? I live in Canada, am a politician in Ontario (part of my job is overseeing the local hospitals) and to my experience no one has died waiting for services. "

There have been a few problems with your system (like the same can't be said of ours) that critics of health care reforms like to single out and play up way out of proportion. The line about people regularly standing in line and dieing while waiting for life saving medical procedures is hugely popular amongst the talk radio set.

The typical story is told as to how there are hundreds, nay, thousands of people in Canada who are, each year, made to wait months and years for vital health services. England's system is even worse then Canada's by the way. Regular people who have the money to do so, and just tons of Canadian doctors who all know that the American system is sooo much better, flock South of the boarder for care rather then waiting for care that will come late or, gasp, even too

Funny thing is, I know a few Canadians and I know quite a few people from England (including several arch conservatives) and Scotland and they rarely see our system as better. One girl I know came over a few years ago and was appalled at the nature of our system when it came to a mutual friend's discussions of the bills and ordeals involved in the birth of her first child. My English friend then discussed the care, treatment and attention she received for the birth of her son in England and found the U.S.'s system to be less then fantastic in comparison. Hell, the whole thing with the bills was almost enough to make me want to move there this last summer. I'm still crawling out of that pit and I have insurance.

Huh, lost words and goofed the italics. the correct post was....

_____________________________________________________________________

"Um... could you give me specific examples of this? I live in Canada, am a politician in Ontario (part of my job is overseeing the local hospitals) and to my experience no one has died waiting for services."

There have been a few problems with your system (like the same can't be said of ours) that critics of health care reforms like to single out and play up way out of proportion. The line about people regularly standing in line and dieing while waiting for life saving medical procedures is hugely popular amongst the talk radio set.

The typical story is told as to how there are hundreds, nay, thousands of people in Canada who are, each year, made to wait months and years for vital health services. England's system is even worse then Canada's by the way. Regular people who have the money to do so, and just tons of Canadian doctors who all know that the American system is sooo much better, flock South of the boarder for care rather then waiting for care that will come late or, gasp, even too late.

Funny thing is, I know a few Canadians and I know quite a few people from England (including several arch conservatives) and Scotland and they rarely see our system as better. One girl I know came over a few years ago and was appalled at the nature of our system when it came to a mutual friend's discussions of the bills and ordeals involved in the birth of her first child. My English friend then discussed the care, treatment and attention she received for the birth of her son in England and found the U.S.'s system to be less then fantastic in comparison. Hell, the whole thing with the bills was almost enough to make me want to move there this last summer. I'm still crawling out of that pit and I have insurance.

Most of the stories I hear from people actually living in Canada or Great Britain are a far cry from people desperate for an American style system or of people waiting so long for simple procedures that things spiral out of control until greater levels of medical treatment are required to save their life if they even get that before dieing while waiting in the system. But, turn on talk radio and you get lots of "experts" taking on the subject as well as the occasional caller (who is either missing an accent all together or doing such a bad one that it make the ones used in The Boondock Saints sound authentic) telling tales of near misses with death and the life saving moves of heading South to get the expert and available treatment so lacking in Canada.

And then 20 million dittoits go out and parrot every word of it.

Canada and England are perfect examples of why we don't need Nationalized healthcare....

Stick 'em back on the gov't plantation.

I didn't realize Canada and England separated children from their parents and sold them as commodities. It's a wonder some brave successor to Rosa Parks like you hasn't spoken up before.

I was on free lunch at school because my mther couldn't afford to send in the money for our food. I was on a program that provided juice, milk and cereal to our home. When our son was born, I was in the Navy, and didn't make much money, so my family went on WIC for a couple of months. I am not insensitive to the need for help, but at some point, people need to stand on their own two feet. If you have read the rest of my post, then you know what my family and I have been through in the past 2 years. People can bounce back from problems.

You compared providing socialized healthcare to slavery. I provided what is perhaps the defining qualification for slavery -- the privilege to trade human beings. Your obvious options are to validate your analogy by demonstrating how the qualification for slavery was fulfilled or retreat from your analogy.

We currently live under a system where insurance companies accept increased profits by refusing to do what they took their money for. Bouncing back's got nothing to do with it.

As for the Rosa Parks comment, what the hell?

As far as your analogy of socialized medicine to civil rights violations go, there doesn't seem to be a place for comparing the challenge against socialized medicine to any civil rights dissent, which you've confirmed by questioning the relevance of a historical instance of civil rights dissent to your analogy.

Socialized medicine, just as socialism in general, simply does not work. This has been proven both logically and empirically any number of times. "For the children" may sound nice, but it isn't much of an argument. Not to mention that a government that has the power to heal you also has the power to do the opposite.

Socialized medicine, just as socialism in general, simply does not work. This has been proven both logically and empirically any number of times.

Unless you waive the privilege of ever dialing 911, you accept a socialized service. Logically and empirically.

Socialized medicine, just as socialism in general, simply does not work. This has been proven both logically and empirically any number of times.

That's why the US is 38th in the world in life expectancy, behind Canada, the UK, and most of western Europe? And why it's in a similar position regarding infant mortality? The actual empirical facts don't logically connect to your position.

For all the talk about how "socialized medicine" doesn't work, nearly every industrialized nation has some kind of national healthcare system except the US. And, despite all the horror stories conservatives toss around about waiting lists, the majority of people in those countries prefer it to what we have.

And the numbers bear it out. We pay a higher precentage of our GNP on health care than any other nation and yet we're near the bottom of industrialized nations in terms of life expectency.

Our current system of employer provided health care is broken. It's one of the main reasons that companies complain that US labor is too expensive. Hell, companies like GM are doing everything they can to get out of paying for the health care of their retirees, never mind that they signed the contracts 40 years ago when things were good for the US auto industry.

Waiting lists? Inefficiencies? Rationing of care? We've already got those here. It's all just hidden under layers of financial incentives from the insurance companies to keep costs down.

I had to go to the ER a few years ago for a back injury and it took hours to be seen and it wasn't even at a busy metropolitan hospital. It was a small rural community late at night (non-peak hours). But they made sure all my insurance forms were filled out before a doctor even said hello.

But no, let's argue about whether 82k is "poor" in Alabama, even though the elgibility limit in AL is actually about half that for a family of four. Nothing like making up facts as we go along.

Bush was here in Pennsylvania last week to justify his veto. Here's how it went:

"I really appreciate the Lancaster Chamber of Commerce for giving me an opportunity to explain why I have made some of the decisions I have made. My job is a decision-making job. And as a result, I make a lot of decisions. And it's important for me to have an opportunity to speak to you and others who would be listening about the basis on which I have made decisions, to explain the philosophy behind some of the decisions I have made."

Yep, he's the decider.

Bobb, my condolences to your family

"Not to mention that a government that has the power to heal you also has the power to do the opposite."

So, the private doctor under the system we have now has the power to do the opposite. Just about anyone or anything that can be helpful or beneficial in any situation has the power to do the opposite. So, was that point actually meant to be something other then extra words at the end of your post or had you just not thought it through all that well before posting?

Doug Atkinson: That's why the US is 38th in the world in life expectancy, behind Canada, the UK, and most of western Europe?
Luigi Novi: How do you know that life expectancy is tied so closely to whether a nation has socialized medicine? Have you excluded all other societal factors?

Here It Is.
The Answer To All The Health Care Problems.
If you CAN NOT afford to have a kid, THEN DO NOT have a kid!!!!

Dave, you're absolutely right. Every parent should make sure they save up enough money to pay for several years of chemo therapy in the event that their kid gets cancer before they even think of having children.

Why didn't anyone else think of that?

Dave W.,

You're an idiot and here's why.

You can afford to have a kid, two kids or three kids at any given time in your life. Thing is, life tends to be a little fickle. Sean already pointed out above the situation he was in. I once watched layoffs drop a family of four with a pretty good six figure income down to being a family of four with about $30,000 a year coming in to live off of. That lasted for about three years before they were able to get back up to better income levels. My father-in-law was "downsized" from his $125,000 + a year gig. He's still not making anything near that now.

Jobs can go "poof" real fast these days. You can afford five kids one year and not be able to afford one kid the next.

That doesn't even take into account unexpected medical or care bills. Den pointed out the chemo example before I could, but there's tons of stuff out there that can bring on medical bills that can crush someone. Special needs children, long term treatments, really bad accident that put you out of work for a long spell. I had a friend who developed a tumor in her brain. She had to stop working. A cop's salary ain't much, but if it's half of what's coming in and it goes away then you're hurting. She couldn't work and she and her husband were paying huge bills right up until the cancer killed her. They had kids. Fortunately, all three kids were adults and either in the military or working elsewhere, but had that tumor hit just a few years earlier..

I'm not an advocate of 24/7, cradle to the grave nanny states, but any nation that dares to declare itself the greatest nation on the Earth better damned well better have system that's better then "F 'em, they're own there own." And it certainly better have a better idea then the drivel you slapped out on your keyboard.

Mike, what's your point? Yes, I accept a socialized services now --and I would accept it if we were given universal health care-- that doesn't mean it works.

The United States being 38th in the world most likely has to do with our eating and exercise habits. And look at what the United States considers infant mortality compared to what most European countries do.

Jerry, the difference between a private doctor and an all powerful central state should be obvious.

Mike, what's your point? Yes, I accept a socialized services now --and I would accept it if we were given universal health care-- that doesn't mean it works.

The United States being 38th in the world most likely has to do with our eating and exercise habits. And look at what the United States considers infant mortality compared to what most European countries do.

Jerry, the difference between a private doctor and an all powerful central state should be obvious.

Socialized medicine, just as socialism in general, simply does not work. This has been proven both logically and empirically any number of times.

Unless you waive the privilege of ever dialing 911, you accept a socialized service. Logically and empirically.

Mike, what's your point? Yes, I accept a socialized services now --and I would accept it if we were given universal health care-- that doesn't mean it works.

You said nothing socialized works. Your police and fire departments are socialized services, logically and empirically. Your unwillingness to do away with your police and fire departments demonstrates your inaccuracy in portraying socialism ruining everything it touches. It ain't Rocket Surgery, Ben.

"Who should be responsible for protecting abused or neglected kids if the government will not?"

Are you saying that being late to school is the same as abusing your child? Wow. That's something...

"You compared providing socialized healthcare to slavery. I provided what is perhaps the defining qualification for slavery -- the privilege to trade human beings. Your obvious options are to validate your analogy by demonstrating how the qualification for slavery was fulfilled or retreat from your analogy"

Okay, how about this, by the government's willingness to continue to coddle individuals and families and not give them their own personal "D-Day", where they can be expected to fend for themselves, then the one's on he government take volunteer to subjugate themselves to the wishes and whims of a government that is all too willing to allow them a life or financial slavery at worst, and financial indentured servitude at best.

"Since I assume your parents were not rich enough to pay for private education for you, who would have paid for your education if the government didn't? Do you think they would have done a better job educating you? \or do you think the government should have spent less educating you? What would have happened to you had you been less educated?"

In fact, I did spend 3 years in a privet school, not because my family is or was rich, but because they sacrificed and did without for me to go there. And no, money is not the answer. Accountability is. Teachers are doing a tough job, not only dealing with the children of someone else, but dealing with the parents as well. Parents need to be held accountable for their children and not simply bitch and moan when little Johnny gets a 0 on his homework. Look, I could ramble on for hours, but nobody cares. Most of you have your opinion and it is not going to change by me telling you anything. You are right, the sky is falling. Everybody run, run, run. I have to take my kids to school before I get arrested.

Oh, and one final thought...Why can't big boys and girls like all of us not have a grown up conversation online without calling each other name. Keep in mind the old saying about opinions and assholes...

How do you know that life expectancy is tied so closely to whether a nation has socialized medicine? Have you excluded all other societal factors?

The burden of proof isn't on me, since I'm not making any such claim; I'm just providing data that's contrary to the claim that socialized medicine "empirically" doesn't work. (Those who want to claim that the Canadian system is killing people could start by explaining how Canada has 2.6 years more life expectancy and 3/4 the infant mortality rate, for example.)

"Oh, and one final thought...Why can't big boys and girls like all of us not have a grown up conversation online without calling each other name."

Dear Mr. MyTMauz, I was not aware that I called you names or was trying to be insulting in any other way. If I did, please point it out to me so I will not repeat the mistake. My questions were serious and with the intention of holding serious conversation.

"Most of you have your opinion and it is not going to change by me telling you anything. You are right, the sky is falling. Everybody run, run, run."

You are mistaken about that, my mind is not made up on these issues, which is why I ask questions. You should also know that I'm not an American and have no stake whatsoever in the specific welfare policies of your country, except perhaps when they are imitated by politicians in mine.

"Are you saying that being late to school is the same as abusing your child? Wow. That's something..."

I don't know if the problem here was that I was not clear enough or that you are deliberately misunderstanding me. I'll spell things out more clearly. The question here is: what is the responsibility of the government? It is assumed by people who support the welfare state that the government should step in to protect and provide for children if and when their parents are doing it below certain standards, and it is also assumed that he government should use its coercive power to do so. Thus the government arrests abusive parents, takes away neglected children, and enforces mandatory school attendance. What is unclear to mm is whether you completely oppose the government involvement; oppose its involvement in certain things (which); or just the way it performs its job?

"In fact, I did spend 3 years in a privet school, not because my family is or was rich, but because they sacrificed and did without for me to go there. And no, money is not the answer. Accountability is. Teachers are doing a tough job, not only dealing with the children of someone else, but dealing with the parents as well. Parents need to be held accountable for their children and not simply bitch and moan when little Johnny gets a 0 on his homework."

Here I find myself completely at a loss. There so many issues here, and I really don't know where you stand.
1) Public school system, good or bad thing (as a matter of principle)?
2) If government provided education is the right thing, why are there problems with the system, and how can they be fixed (taking into account that this will cost the taxpayers money)?
3) What is the role of parents? What can be done so they perform that role? When should governmental coercive power be used?

"Okay, how about this, by the government's willingness to continue to coddle individuals and families and not give them their own personal "D-Day", where they can be expected to fend for themselves, then the one's on he government take volunteer to subjugate themselves to the wishes and whims of a government that is all too willing to allow them a life or financial slavery at worst, and financial indentured servitude at best."

First it should be pointed out that this last paragraph was in response to somebody else, not me. I take not responsibility for what he said or the way he said it. However, again things are unclear to me. Does the American welfare system actually force people to do things based on their dependence on government welfare? Secondly, it has always been my impression that opponents of the welfare system feel that the government should be more demanding of the recipients of welfare.

---------------

"And look at what the United States considers infant mortality compared to what most European countries do."

Do Western European countries have lesser standards when it comes to infant mortality? Does Canada?

"Here It Is.
The Answer To All The Health Care Problems.
If you CAN NOT afford to have a kid, THEN DO NOT have a kid!!!!"

Jerry and Den have already talked parents who may have sufficient funds to take care of their children under regular conditions, but not under extreme ones, or if their economic condition changes suddenly in an unforeseen way. They also pointed out that in todays economy changes like that can occur quite often. A collapse of a stock market in the far east can cause recession in the US, for example. The question is, is is desirable that only financially secure people should have children?
Furthermore, it should also be pointed out that children are not always born to the most capable parents. If a child is born to a parent who is incapable to provide for his or her care, and lacked the foresight not to have a child, what should be done? Or should the government step in to ensure that people like that do not have children?

---------------
"I accept a socialized services now --and I would accept it if we were given universal health care-- that doesn't mean it works."

Obviously socialized services do work, or you wouldn't be able to use them. ? The question is not one of a systems that completely doesn't work and one that works perfectly well. All western countries live in a kind of compromise between market economy and the welfare state, the question is one of degree. There are three basic questions: (1) what is better (in different circumstances), socialized or privatized services, from the point of view of quality of service? (2) What is the price (monetary or otherwise) of using either one of the systems? (3) What is the right balance?

Okay, how about this, by the government's willingness to continue to coddle individuals and families and not give them their own personal "D-Day", where they can be expected to fend for themselves, then the one's on he government take volunteer to subjugate themselves to the wishes and whims of a government that is all too willing to allow them a life or financial slavery at worst, and financial indentured servitude at best.

Please indicate the subject of your sentence to those of us who learned to read and write English in the wild west of public education.

Please indicate the subject of your sentence to those of us who learned to read and write English in the wild west of public education.

It's hilarious that you would even attempt to include yourself in such a group, Mike.

"Here It Is.
The Answer To All The Health Care Problems.
If you CAN NOT afford to have a kid, THEN DO NOT have a kid!!!!"

Ignoring the gross oversimplification this statement makes, seeing as it ignores all health care problems that stem from adult illnesses...

I'd be the first to say that anyone having children who hasn't determined that they can afford to care for and raise that child is irresponsible. Having said that, this is no solution at all. Short of highly draconian measures, there's just no way to get society to this point. Even good public educations...at least when I was in school...teach barely the basics of reproduction, thanks to our society's fear of encouraging promiscuity in children. There's no education on child-rearing, the differences in child stage development, or any kind of real education on the financial requirements a child has. Maybe more kids would be more careful about sex if we taught them what kind of time and money responsibility children are.

Luigi Novi: How do you know that life expectancy is tied so closely to whether a nation has socialized medicine? Have you excluded all other societal factors?

Doug Atkinson: The burden of proof isn't on me, since I'm not making any such claim; I'm just providing data that's contrary to the claim that socialized medicine "empirically" doesn't work. (Those who want to claim that the Canadian system is killing people could start by explaining how Canada has 2.6 years more life expectancy and 3/4 the infant mortality rate, for example.)
Luigi Novi: And I'm asking you, in response, to explain how you know that life expectancy has anything to do with whether a nation has socialized medicine. Of course you're making a claim. By brining up life expectancy, you're making the implicit claim that there's a connection between the two.

"I'd be the first to say that anyone having children who hasn't determined that they can afford to care for and raise that child is irresponsible."

When my then-wife was pregnant with our first child, we had everything planned out. I was working as an all-around office hand at a small publisher and had been promised a promotion to assistant editor and a raise right before Christmas. She was going to be able to stay home and take care of our child. We had income, medical coverage...we were set.

A week before Christmas, rather than keep her word about the promotion, my boss fired me. So there I was, with my wife seven months pregnant, out of work at the worst time of the year to be out of work.

Are you telling me I was irresponsible for believing my boss's promise or thinking my job was secure?

PAD

It's hilarious that you would even attempt to include yourself in such a group, Mike.

You are welcome to put me in my place anytime you feel like bringing out one of my many sentences you can't find the subject to, Craig. Until then: attempted and succeeded.

Man, I wish I lived in a world of delusions like Mike. Life would be so much easier then.

To me, the most appalling thing about the whole veto is this:
Way, way back when Bush the Smarter was running for President the first time, there was a Doonesbury strip in which someone was asking the erstwhile President what people should do if some disaster befell them and their homes were lost or damaged (I'm doing some major paraphrasing here because I can't find it online and the collection the strip is in is at home). The candidate's reply was that he assumed they'd just go to their summer homes.

Now, that was satire in a comic strip. It wasn't real. It was funny.

Dubya saying there's no health-care crisis because, hey, you can just go to an emergency room and get treated if you need it--that's real. And it's not very damn funny at all.

"Dubya saying there's no health-care crisis because, hey, you can just go to an emergency room and get treated if you need it--that's real. And it's not very damn funny at all."

It shows how fucking out of touch with reality the First Chimp is...

Bush always stands on principals...after kicking them to the ground and rubbing their faces in the dirt like the rugby thug he is.

Bush always stands on principals

I always knew that W. was anti-education but this is taking it too far.

I notice that the conservative line is that "socialized medicine" doesn't work. Yet studies have shown that Americans are more disatisfied with our current system than residents of other industrialized nations.

"One-third of Americans told pollsters that the U.S. health care system should be completely rebuilt, far more than residents of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the U.K. Just 16 percent of Americans said that the U.S. health care system needs only minor changes, the lowest number expressing approval among the countries surveyed."

And

"Four in 10 U.S. adults told researchers that they had gone without needed care because of the cost, including skipping prescriptions, avoiding going to the doctor, or skipping a recommended test or treatment.

"Meanwhile, 26 percent of Americans surveyed said that they had faced more than $1,000 in out-of-pocket health care costs in the last year, compared with 14 percent of Australians, and 4 percent of Britons."

Of course, feel free to ignore the above quotes, as it's just more of the "liberal media" spouting off their socialist agenda.

Peter David: Are you telling me I was irresponsible for believing my boss's promise or thinking my job was secure?"

I highly doubt it. I think it is more likely that Bobb is referring to the phenomenon of chronically poor individuals having children indiscriminately.

It is a false dilemma to argue about whether government assistance enables irresponsible procreation or simply helps families who fall on hard times. Both phenomena coexist within our society.

My girlfriend has worked for the social services department in the county in which we live for nearly two decades. She is currently a supervisor for one of the county's Child Protective Investigations units. As such, she has a perspective that many "bleeding hearts" lack: the poor are for her more than merely an abstract concept which she has fleshed out with preconceived notions. She interacts with them, works with them, and understands quite a bit about them. Moreover, she is earning an Master's Degree in Social Work and has had an academic paper published in a journal published by the National Association of Social Work. And, yes, there is a significant swath of the population that suffers from poverty because of their own irresponsible behavior. Choices including indiscriminate, unprotected sex resulting in unwanted pregnancies; indiscriminate intentional procreation by individuals with no means to support a child; drug use; and criminal behavior are all choices that people make that either result in poverty or aggravate it.

The costs to society are often more than liberals care to acknowledge. After all, the government spends far more on "corporate welfare" than on aid to the underpriviledged, right? Well... no. Because that comparison blithely omits the other costs to society inflicted on us by the chronically poor and irresponsible: the cost of providing health care to children damaged by malnourishment and/or other forms of neglect, the costs of maintaining prisons for the disproportionate number of poor people who end up there, and the costs of government-funded drug treatment programs are all examples of the less-obvious costs of poverty.

So we simply need to stop giving these people hand-outs, goes the conservative trope. Well, wrong again. It's easy to say that people should straighten up and fly right. But a child who grows up in a household where no one works, criminal behavior is the norm, and there is no loving guidance has very little chance of understanding that he or she has a choice about how to behave. Worse still, if he or she suffers trauma such as abuse, or is malnourished, his or her neurological development can be impaired in subtle yet profound ways.

Clearly, the current system isn't working because it encourages irresponsible behavior by providing an omnipresent safety net. On the other hand, the idea that we can just cut off these programs fails to take into account the costs society will incur should the chronically poor be turned out on the street without learning the skills needed to be productive citizens.

It's a complicated problem, and I have yet to hear anyone offer a realistic solution. I think it's a discourse we need to have, but instead we have polarized debates like this that degenerate into personal acrimony.

SCHIPS, by the way, is a band-aid for the hemmorhage that is our health care system today. Health care costs are skyrocketing way past the rate of inflation. As others here have pointed out, even the middle class is having trouble keeping up. Real wages are being driven down as people's raises are being eaten up in large part by ever-more-costly health insurance premiums. Hard-working, economically secure individuals are now one catastrophic health problem away from seeing the fruits of their life's work wiped out. If left unchecked, the meteoric rise of health care costs could have a significantly adverse impact on our overall economy.

There are many causes, however, and not all of them are due to the Big Evil Boogey-Men of the Left or the Right.

Take prescription drugs, for example. On the one hand, drug companies are unconscionably profiteering at the expense of the U.S. consumer. On the other hand, I don't think drug companies will ever be able to manufacture drugs as cheaply as some would like to believe. Research into new drugs costs millions or even billions of dollars and is a crap-shoot. Drug companies have to maintain cash reserves beyond what companies in other industries need, because they have to be prepared to absorb those losses.

(Canadians, among other nations with socialized health care, ought not to be so quick to criticize our health system, by the way. The low prices their governments negotiate for prescription drugs are subsidized by higher prices charged for those same drugs in the U.S.)

That's just the tip of the iceberg. The current tangled mess of multiple payers, including private insurance plans, HMOs, Medicaid, and Medicare, each of which has its own labyrinthine and crushingly massive set of rules and procedures, increases the administrative overhead for medical providers who pass those costs along to us. There is fraud on the part of both providers and health care consumers. There is irrational rationing of health care: plans that will not pay for preventive treatment such as mammograms but will pay for far-more expensive cancer treatments such as radical mastectomies. I could go on and on.

We need a serious debate about health care in this nation, one that is driven by a sober assessment of empirical evidence. Unfortunately, that cannot take place in an environment where the debate so quickly degenerates into personal acrimony, and where emotion trumps thought.

"Your unwillingness to do away with your police and fire departments demonstrates your inaccuracy in portraying socialism ruining everything it touches."

I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth.

"Do Western European countries have lesser standards when it comes to infant mortality? Does Canada?"

From Wikipedia: "The infant mortality rate correlates very strongly with and is among the best predictors of state failure.[1] IMR is also a useful indicator of a country's level of health or development, and is a component of the physical quality of life index. But the method of calculating IMR often varies widely between countries based on the way they define a live birth. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines a live birth as any born human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, including breathing, voluntary muscle movement, or heartbeat. Many countries, however, including certain European states and Japan, only count as live births cases where an infant breathes at birth, which makes their reported IMR numbers somewhat lower and raises their rates of perinatal mortality.

The exclusion of any high-risk infants from the denominator or numerator in reported IMRs can be problematic for comparisons. The United States counts an infant exhibiting any sign of life as alive, no matter the month of gestation or the size, but some other countries differ in these practices. For example, in Germany and Austria, fetal weight must reach one pound to be counted as a live birth, while in some other countries, including Switzerland, the baby must be at least 12 inches long. Both Belgium and France report babies as born lifeless if they are less than 26 weeks' gestation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality

My understanding is that in many cases other countries don't even try to save these "non-living" babies.

"Are you telling me I was irresponsible for believing my boss's promise or thinking my job was secure?"

Did you have a contract? Even if not, what she said constituted a verbal contract no doubt, and if you wanted you could have threatened a law suit in this day and age.

Socialized medicine, just as socialism in general, simply does not work. This has been proven both logically and empirically any number of times.

Unless you waive the privilege of ever dialing 911, you accept a socialized service. Logically and empirically.

Mike, what's your point? Yes, I accept a socialized services now --and I would accept it if we were given universal health care-- that doesn't mean it works.

Your unwillingness to do away with your police and fire departments demonstrates your inaccuracy in portraying socialism ruining everything it touches.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth.

What are you denying, that you'd rather have your police and fire departments than not have them, that you said socialism ruins everything, or what?

Do Western European countries have lesser standards when it comes to infant mortality? Does Canada?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality

It's very late and I may be too tired to understand correctly, but doesn't the above quote suggest that European countries have higher standards when it comes to infant mortality. Naely, that if the american standards were appplied in Europe than their infant mortality rates would have been even better compared to the US?

"We need a serious debate about health care in this nation, one that is driven by a sober assessment of empirical evidence. Unfortunately, that cannot take place in an environment where the debate so quickly degenerates into personal acrimony, and where emotion trumps thought."

Well said. True of other complicated subjects as well.

It's very late and I may be too tired to understand correctly, but doesn't the above quote suggest that European countries have higher standards when it comes to infant mortality. Naely, that if the American standards were appplied in Europe than their infant mortality rates would have been even better compared to the US?

I think it means that what would be considered a dead infant in the US--and thus contribute to the overall infant mortality rate--would be just a stillbirth in other countries, and thus not add to their total.

How much this changes the overall numbers, I can't say.

Incidentally, the standards are not even equal from state to state in this country. Talking about the sudden spike in infant mortality in MO, a reader commented "In some states, an infant must live for several hours to be counted as born live. If it dies sooner, it is counted as a still birth. Other states do not count premature infants. Some places count deaths attributed to accidents while others do not."

Interesting article at http://www.overpopulation.com/articles/2002/cuba-vs-the-united-states-on-infant-mortality/ may shed some light on this. Money quotes:

The primary reason Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the United States is that the United States is a world leader in an odd category — the percentage of infants who die on their birthday. In any given year in the United States anywhere from 30-40 percent of infants die before they are even a day old.

Why? Because the United States also easily has the most intensive system of emergency intervention to keep low birth weight and premature infants alive in the world. The United States is, for example, one of only a handful countries that keeps detailed statistics on early fetal mortality — the survival rate of infants who are born as early as the 20th week of gestation.

This is not an necessarily an attempt by the countries involved to game the system; the World Health Organization itself recommends that for official record keeping purposes, only live births of greater than 1,000g should be included. The fact that the USA includes smaller births (which have a 50% survival rate at best) drops our numbers relative to those that don't.

If the ability and desire to save ultra low birth weight babies is a sign of a successful health care system it would be ironic to have it be used as a condemnation of that same system.

"Government run health care may not be ideal, but it's certainly better than the corporate run health care we currently have."

Sounds like the choices are eating shite and sucking vomit.

"What are you denying, that you'd rather have your police and fire departments than not have them, that you said socialism ruins everything, or what?"

The former.

Ben, Ben, Ben...the only good that will come out of this is another zombie movie review...

Mike, what's your point? Yes, I accept a socialized services now --and I would accept it if we were given universal health care-- that doesn't mean it works.

Your unwillingness to do away with your police and fire departments demonstrates your inaccuracy in portraying socialism ruining everything it touches.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth.

What are you denying, that you'd rather have your police and fire departments than not have them, that you said socialism ruins everything, or what?

The former.

The advantage in maintaining a public system to intervene against violence and the destruction of life and property by fire and other disasters seems so obvious that only absurd reasons seem plausible in justifying dismantling them. Please provide yours before I provide those you've left me to infer from what you've said so far.

...the only good that will come out of this is another zombie movie review...

Mr. Mulligan, you are trying to seduce me.

Please indicate the subject of your sentence to those of us who learned to read and write English in the wild west of public education.

It's hilarious that you would even attempt to include yourself in such a group, Mike.

You are welcome to put me in my place anytime you feel like bringing out one of my many sentences you can't find the subject to, Craig. Until then: attempted and succeeded.

Man, I wish I lived in a world of delusions like Mike. Life would be so much easier then.

Craig, maybe someday you'll be generous enough to explain the virtue in you bestowing on me -- under any sense of fairness -- the privilege to tell you you have no cojones, when all I have to do to meet your challenge is dig out my high school diploma.

Michelle Malkin has begun stalking the family of the 12 year old kid who read the Democrats' response to Bush's veto. She's showed up at their house and where his parents work in a desperate attempt to claim that they're "wealthy". Yep, harassing kids injured in a car accident.

Just when you think the wingnuts have hit rock bottom, they get out the jackhammers and start digging.

"Ben, Ben, Ben...the only good that will come out of this is another zombie movie review..."

I'd like to put in a request for the Hammer Films feature, The Plague of the Zombies. Not that I need the review for myself. I upgraded my VHS of that one to DVD some time ago. I just feel that this is an often overlooked zombie film that rarely gets the attention that it deserves. Yeah, I know... Voodoo zombies aren't really your bag and all, but it's a good zombie film nonetheless.

"Michelle Malkin has begun stalking the family of the 12 year old kid who read the Democrats' response to Bush's veto."

Where'd you see/read this?

Well, I first heard it on the radio, but you can go to Michelle "Japanese internment wasn't all that bad" Malkin's blog. She proudly details her harassment there.

Or you can get some infor here:

http://thinkprogress.org/

Where'd you see/read this?

Stalking may be a bold statement but it seems to me that the point could have been easily made without getting physically involved. If the family, as some suggest, seems to have been more interested in investing in business properties than in health care, that's a legitimate point. No reason to run around interviewing their neighbors. Yeah, I suppose once your kid delivers the national radio address of one of the major parties your claims become fair game but still...you aren't going to score any points by being aggressive.

The Plague of the Zombies is a personal fave of mine as well--haven't seen it in a long time though. As I recall, it was made at the same time as THE REPTILE and had some of the same cast and sets. Neither is top tier Hammer but that still puts them above most. The resurrection scenes were creepy as all hell and I recall thinking that Romero may have gotten more from tis movie than is generally realized but I can't remember why.

You know, while they waste everyone's time remaking movies that were done just fine diddley dandy the first time--like STRAWDOGS and NEAR DARK--why not remake some of these old Hammer movies which could actually benefit from an updating? Wouldn't mind seeing THE GORGON redone with better makeup effects either.

Then again, I'm the guy who can't figure out why everyone doesn't demand they bring back 3 strip technicolor. (I'm tempted to go get a High Def dvd player just because they have released SUSPIRIA in it's "new and improved" form, thereby rendering my dvd as officially "old and lousy".)

Police and firemen didn't exist when our nation was founded; it was all done privately. Volunteers. It still can be (and should be) today.

Again, from Wikipedia: "In the United States, the first organized police service was established in Boston in 1838, New York in 1844, and Philadelphia in 1854. However, in the Founding Era, and even well into the 20th century in some parts of the country, law enforcement was done by private citizens acting as militia."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police

Yeah, I suppose once your kid delivers the national radio address of one of the major parties your claims become fair game but still...you aren't going to score any points by being aggressive.

I'd like someone to explain to me the rules vis-a-vis when somebody crosses the line and becomes fair game (Not to Bill M: this is not directed personally at you. I just want to understand the rules). A few weeks ago, we were told that when Bush hides behind a four-star general (because his own credibility is shot) to sell his Iraqi war strategy, the general must be treated as if he has Christ-like infallibility. Any questioning that his report might be politically motivated is a disgusting attack on all of our service men and women.

But, a 12-year old kid who delivers (like politicians have never used kids as props before) a speech is fair game to have people confront his neighbors and the coworkers of his parents with questions about his family's finances.

Oh, and just for the record, I personally thought the the moveon.org ad was stupid and over the top.

Police and firemen didn't exist when our nation was founded; it was all done privately. Volunteers. It still can be (and should be) today.

I can see how a city of 12 million people like NY could operate with a volunteer police force. Yeah, that would work.

Maybe individual shopkeepers could hire Blackwater to guard their stores. That would make the city as safe as Iraq.

Police and firemen didn't exist when our nation was founded; it was all done privately. Volunteers. It still can be (and should be) today.

It sounds like you want firemen to show up at your burning house with buckets of water, armed vigilantes running loose accountable to no one who's accountable to the vote, and Blackwater kicking the ass of anyone who lets the sun set on him in the wrong neighborhood.

Never mind, Den. I went looking at MM's website. I she and her regular posters hadn't convinced everybody that they were loons before...

Just a few of the claims:
The Frost family has a combined annual income of about $45,000, said Bonnie Frost. She and her husband have priced private health insurance, but they say it would cost them more per month than their mortgage - about $1,200 a month. Neither parent has health insurance through work.

$1200 per month for a family of 6 in Baltimore. Really? What are they smoking?

A check of a quote engine for zip code 21250 (Baltimore) finds a plan for $641 with a $0 deductible and $20 doc copays.

Adding a deductible of $750 (does not apply to doc visits) drops the premium to $452. That’s almost a third of the price quoted in the article. Doesn’t anyone bother to check the facts?

Apparently not.

Cute. The best I could find at http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehi/Welcome.ds (which matches her posted $$$$ amounts) were plans for families of four that really didn't cover that much when you looked at the details of each plan. Further, I have a sister-in-law in Baltimore and can tell you that they had a hell of a time finding a good insurance plan that worked with their preferred doctors. It's like my departments former dental coverage. It was described as "great" by the state, but almost no dentists in the area would accept it. Until I got my coverage changed, we were driving 40 minutes to see a dentist. And it was a lousy dentist to boot. If you can't get a good doctor, then the cheap plan is practically worthless.

I also passed by the Frosts’ rowhouse. There was an “01 - 20 -09″ bumper sticker plastered on the door and a newer model GMC Suburban parked directly in front of the house. I’ve seen guesstimates of the house’s worth in the $400,000-plus range.

Wow. She's seen "guesstimates" of the house's worth. This is from the same post on her blog where she trashes others for their poor "reporting" in the mainstream media. I wonder if she'd think that guesstimates would be reporting of the highest standards if it was, say, MSNBC doing a piece on Bush or Cheney? Somehow, I doubt it.

One of her blog's posters claims, "So again I say…SHENANIGANS!!!" Why? He went to monster.com and looked up what Mr. Frost said he makes VS what he must "really" make. The Frosts say that they make $45,000 a year. The poster claims that his crack research proves that Frost makes at least $60,370. I wonder if the idiot put in his own job description for his location as a comparison? I did. From what I did find there, I'll never believe another thing that monster.com claims again.

I've got no problems with legitimate questions or reporting, but this tripe is shear speculation be paraded around as fact. The sad thing is, she'll no doubt be on Hannity and Colmes this week to play all of this up as facts, it will become the "facts" reported by the RNM and then the "facts" will be used to smear the family.

"As I recall, it was made at the same time as THE REPTILE and had some of the same cast and sets. "

Yeah, it was. Anchor Bay even had a two disc set with both movies on it out a few years ago. Money was tight though, so I had to pass it up. Still, like I said, at least I have Plague on DVD and I still have the VHS of The Reptile.

Hey, about those remakes... Quatermass!!!! While I love Quatermass and the Pit, I wouldn't mind seeing the others in the series updated by a good team. Oh, and X: The Unknown as well since it was meant to be a Quatermass anyhow.

And, who wouldn't just love a Captain Kronos - Vampire Hunter series done by Danny Boyle, Guillermo del Toro or some equally adept unknown director with a good writing team and a good cast and crew?

Well, Jerry, according to thinkprogress.org, the Frosts paid $55,000 for their home 16 years ago. They state this as a "fact", not a "guesstimate". And they also state that at the time they bought the house, it was in a depressed neighborhood. Perhaps the neighborhood improved in the past two decades and the house's value has gone up eightfold in value in 16 years. Even if that were true, that wouldn't change how much they paid for it nor would it have any bearing on their ability to pay for their kids' medical treatments. Unless Malkin is seriously suggesting that the way to pay for treatment for brain injuries is to sell your home.

The mention of the "01-20-09" is nice dig, too. It shouldn't be shocking that a family who would volunteer to have their kid read a speech for the democrats are not Bush supporters, but in the wingnut world that Malkin operates in, that alone is considered proof that they family is lying about something.

"Police and firemen didn't exist when our nation was founded; it was all done privately. Volunteers. It still can be (and should be) today."

Uhhmmmmmmmm... No. I know "professional" cops that aren't all that swift. We really don't need the huge numbers of additional deaths, injuries, lawsuits and other problems that your idea would bring about. Besides, Professional law enforcement agencies are already lowering their hiring standards because they can't get enough people to fill the ranks now. Take away the pay and benefits and you're going to have even less people signing up to do the job.

Hey, I like my job and I do like helping others, but I won't lie to anybody here. money does factor into it. You work at the agency that can pay you enough to live on. Lots of agencies don't and lots more just barely do. I've known guys who loved their jobs but had to leave for private sector jobs because the salary just wasn't cutting it VS their areas cost of living for raising a family.

Besides that, do you really want a bunch of rank amateurs running around your home at night with a gun, oc spray, a tazer and an asp baton if you have to call 911?

I can give you a better example...

Professional soldiers (ie. the U.S, Army) with its relatively minor number of stupid incidents VS Blackwater USA and like groups running around Iraq shooting at everything that moves or filming themselves driving down streets in Iraq and knowingly shooting at civilian targets (and later setting the film to rock music and posting it on the web.)

Sorry, Ben, but that's just a mind numbingly dumb idea.

Huh, shoulda kept reading. Ben beat me to the Blackwater thing.

(Summons Kyle voice) You bastard!!!!!!

Just to be clear. This whole section was from MM's blog. My post dropped a tag or two.
_________________________________________
The Frost family has a combined annual income of about $45,000, said Bonnie Frost. She and her husband have priced private health insurance, but they say it would cost them more per month than their mortgage - about $1,200 a month. Neither parent has health insurance through work.

$1200 per month for a family of 6 in Baltimore. Really? What are they smoking?

A check of a quote engine for zip code 21250 (Baltimore) finds a plan for $641 with a $0 deductible and $20 doc copays.

Adding a deductible of $750 (does not apply to doc visits) drops the premium to $452. That’s almost a third of the price quoted in the article. Doesn’t anyone bother to check the facts?

Apparently not.
________________________

My response started with, "Cute."

Next time I'll have to remember my "" marks as well.

Den, I agree about the price of the hous then VS now. It was foolish to look at the value from today's market rather then from when it was bought. I just found it funny that her whole point about the house was on "guesstimates" of its worth rather then actual worth while she attacks others for poor reporting and fact checking on a daily basis.

"Even if that were true, that wouldn't change how much they paid for it nor would it have any bearing on their ability to pay for their kids' medical treatments."

Actually, that would have a bearing on the debate. It would go to the heart of the matter of fiscal responsibility by the parents. That's likely why she and others will play up the current market value rather then the price that the home was bought for.

If I said that Ian's medical bills were killing me and demanded better healthcare from the taxpayer while it came out that I sold my rather meager home for a $400,000 to $500,000 home after Ian's birth... Well, I'd look stupid and maybe somewhat hypocritical. Now, if I bought a $55,000 home that was now worth that much... It means absolutely zip.

Den, they don't need to hire anyone to guard their stores. Cops don't do it now. They don't prevent crime... they come in afterwards trying to look all professional. If for the first half of our history we were able to go without police, I am sure we can do it again.

Jerry, the reason they are having trouble recruiting is that people hate the police. Wearing the uniform makes you a target. And with good reason. Many police are fascist authoritarians with hard ons for shooting or tazing completely innocent people.

All right, Ben, put your money where your mouth is. Although, on reflection, I can't see that working as there will likely be a huge disparity. And I'm not saying you don't have the money, either. Next time you find yourself in a situation that could include but not limited to--
1)An intruder in your house,
2)Someone totals your car,
3)Your fondue set decides to make your house blazing hot,
4)You fall down your stairs and break several limbs,
5)Your child swallows rat poison,
6)You pull into a parking spot being eyed by an overtired truck driver looking for donuts with a sawed-off on his gun rack behind him,
or anything otherwise determined to be an emergency, DON'T CALL 911. But you're so clever and witty, and you have such a firm grasp of reality, that you'd know just what to do in any of those situations. In fact, according to your thinking, 911 shouldn't exsist at all.

Now, for more serious stuff, I'm embarassed to say the only Hammer film I own is The Satanic Rites Of Dracula. WIth my favorite holiday, my birthday, and my wedding anniversary at the end of the month, I'm hoping to expand that soon. BTW, if you're given the opportunity to see Children of The Living Dead, run screaming down the block. Never seen worse audio dubbing.

I'd like someone to explain to me the rules vis-a-vis when somebody crosses the line and becomes fair game (Not to Bill M: this is not directed personally at you. I just want to understand the rules). A few weeks ago, we were told that when Bush hides behind a four-star general (because his own credibility is shot) to sell his Iraqi war strategy, the general must be treated as if he has Christ-like infallibility. Any questioning that his report might be politically motivated is a disgusting attack on all of our service men and women.

Den, I've come to appreciate your passion for your beliefs but I would hardly categorize the people who criticized the anti-Petraeus MoveOn ad as believing that he should be "treated as if he has Christ-like infallibility".

Further, I have a sister-in-law in Baltimore and can tell you that they had a hell of a time finding a good insurance plan that worked with their preferred doctors. It's like my departments former dental coverage. It was described as "great" by the state, but almost no dentists in the area would accept it. Until I got my coverage changed, we were driving 40 minutes to see a dentist. And it was a lousy dentist to boot. If you can't get a good doctor, then the cheap plan is practically worthless.

I don't know...I'd still prefer a health insurance that didn't give me everything I wanted to none at all.

I also passed by the Frosts’ rowhouse. There was an “01 - 20 -09″ bumper sticker plastered on the door and a newer model GMC Suburban parked directly in front of the house. I’ve seen guesstimates of the house’s worth in the $400,000-plus range.

Wow. She's seen "guesstimates" of the house's worth. This is from the same post on her blog where she trashes others for their poor "reporting" in the mainstream media. I wonder if she'd think that guesstimates would be reporting of the highest standards if it was, say, MSNBC doing a piece on Bush or Cheney? Somehow, I doubt it.

Jerry, in all fairness, you should have quoted the very next line: "Those are high." She's saying that the house didn't look that expensive to her (of course, without knowing what houses in the neighborhood go for, that's useless. I've seen shacks in Aspen going for a cool million).

I still don't think it was a smart move on her part but her account actually is more fair to the family than I'd expected.

Hey, about those remakes... Quatermass!!!! While I love Quatermass and the Pit, I wouldn't mind seeing the others in the series updated by a good team. Oh, and X: The Unknown as well since it was meant to be a Quatermass anyhow.

And, who wouldn't just love a Captain Kronos - Vampire Hunter series done by Danny Boyle, Guillermo del Toro or some equally adept unknown director with a good writing team and a good cast and crew?

Your excellent taste in movies will more than make up for any political disagreement we ever may have, for I am a man who knows his priorities.

CAPTAIN KRONOS-VAMPIRE HUNTER (one of the great titles) would have been terrific if the lead actor didn't seem more interested in the male vampires than in Caroline Munro...then again, this is another movie I need to revisit. Kronos seemed a bit foppish to me but after seeing ROB ROY I have a new appreciation for how cool a killer fop can be.

Hey, how about VAMPIRE CIRCUS?

Den, they don't need to hire anyone to guard their stores. Cops don't do it now. They don't prevent crime... they come in afterwards trying to look all professional. If for the first half of our history we were able to go without police, I am sure we can do it again.

Jerry, the reason they are having trouble recruiting is that people hate the police. Wearing the uniform makes you a target. And with good reason. Many police are fascist authoritarians with hard ons for shooting or tazing completely innocent people.

Ben...you just crossed the line into crazy.

Ignoring the fact that Jerry is a cop and you've just personally insulted someone who was engaged in a perfectly reasonable discourse with you, the notion that police deserve to be "targets" is just nuts. Sorry if you've had a bad experience with cops but that doesn't make wild assertions any more plausible.

I don't know if there's much point in responding to the other points but...A-I don't know that things were so great without cops that we'd want to go back to it. Seems like there was a lot of murder and mob justice in places that didn't have much in the way of an official law force. The country was also radically different. A nation of mostly farmers, spread out far and wide is hardly compatible with the situation of cities with millions of people.

If for the first half of our history we were able to go without police, I am sure we can do it again.

For the first half of our history, the most modern computing device was the Jacquard loom. I don't see how you haven't just given me the privilege to tell you to get off your computer.

Ben, are you being held hostage by people coercing you to post patently stupid things to the internet? If you aren't free to answer, post your social security number and your mother's maiden name, and we'll invite a volunteer send help.

...the reason they are having trouble recruiting is that people hate the police. Wearing the uniform makes you a target. And with good reason. Many police are fascist authoritarians with hard ons for shooting or tazing completely innocent people.

...and you would remove all their accountability to the voters.

> I was on free lunch at school because my mther couldn't afford to send in the money for our food.

Interesting. Living here in 'socialized' Canada, my family moved around when I was very young and I went to school in a very small town, in a mid-sized one and, most recently (OK 30 years back) in a mid-sized city. Yet I don't recall grade school, junior high or even high school having 'free lunches'. We all brought ours from home or bought them from the cafeteria. Must have been another Canada that's not on the map?

>Every parent should make sure they save up enough money to pay for several years of chemo therapy in the event that their kid gets cancer before they even think of having children.

How can they when they're too busy saving up for the hideous post-secondary tuition fees?

>Thing is, life tends to be a little fickle. Sean already pointed out above the situation he was in. I once watched layoffs drop a family of four with a pretty good six figure income down to being a family of four with about $30,000 a year coming in to live off of.

As Bill Myers correctly pointed out, there are many people who DO know their financial situations are not up to the task, but don't care. Even here in Canada, a liberal such as myself knows and freely admits there are people such as an unmarried young woman (early-mid 20s?) who made the news when it was seen she was cranking out babies because it meant more welfare cash for her. This is NOT a good thing.

>Jerry, the difference between a private doctor and an all powerful central state should be obvious.

More expensive for one.

>Are you telling me I was irresponsible for believing my boss's promise or thinking my job was secure?

If so, that puts you up there with me. True, I didn't have a wife - pregnant or otherwise - at the time, but I remember being let go a couple of weeks before Christmas by a boss who'd been promising me a raise (any time now...). Just as well, though. My replacement lasted less than a month before she walked, and her replacement wound up administering a sound thrashing to boss when he tried to cheat him out of threee days' pay. Goes to show sometimes being let go isn't such a bad thing if it leads to prompting one to find better down the line.

"Are you telling me I was irresponsible for believing my boss's promise or thinking my job was secure?"

Absolutely not. In fact, you sorta prove the point about this whole discussion. One, you were responsible parents, having looked at your current situation, saw good things for the future, and decided it was a good time to start planning a family.

Then, the bottom fell out of your future. SCHIPS wasn't around then, but had it been, it might have been something you'd have looked into. Chances are you'd at least have qualified for some assistance under it.

It just goes to show that, just because a family is struggling, that doesn't make them irresponsible. Best laid plans and all that.

At the same time, the couple that's already on assistance, struggles to pay rent every week, wonders where the next paycheck is coming from, and decides to have children...or at least not use any kind of contraception...yeah, them I still think of as irresponsible. And it's hard to imagine a middle-class family having the means to provide for 10 children.

I just want to look at Ben's masterpiece as a whole (or maybe "hole" would be batter) before commenting.

"Jerry, the reason they are having trouble recruiting is that people hate the police. Wearing the uniform makes you a target. And with good reason. Many police are fascist authoritarians with hard ons for shooting or tazing completely innocent people.

Wow, the idiocy grows at a staggering rate...

Ben Lesar: "Jerry, the reason they are having trouble recruiting is that people hate the police. Wearing the uniform makes you a target."

You might want to actually do some research when declaring things like that unless you enjoy looking foolish. Police agencies all over have been encountering hiring difficulties for several reasons. Chief amongst them in the early part of the 2000's (and carrying over up until now) is that many of the people who would have joined their local police department when that came of age signed on to the military after 9/11. This continued to be a problem as well as (as happened with four of our guys and several others I went through academy with) lots of guys who went into police work straight out of military service were still in the window to be called back into service to be sent to Iraq, Afghanistan or Guantanamo.

Money is also a factor. Hanover County Sheriff's Office pays great in this area, but their harder then hell to get into right now. Lots of people go there when they get the chance. Even Richmond PD and the State Police lose officers to Hanover because of the pay issue. on the other side of the coin, Petersburg pays just about the worst in the area. They can't keep anybody new these days. Lots of other agencies are kind of in between.

The problem with in between is that it only pays but so well. The "average" cost of living rate for just the necessities in my area and the surrounding areas is about $35,000 by the last estimate. Most the local departments pay around $28,000 to $33,500. It becomes a little bit like teaching in that it's something you really have to want to do or at least be able to cut corners enough to live off the pay.

And money is the thing that most the guys I know quit their departments or their careers over more then anything else. Hell, we even had a guy quit so he could go back to Iraq to work as a firefighter under that deal where you get $100,000 tax free for staying there a year. With his wife having to stay at home with their first child due to special needs and a second kid on the way, he was just getting to deep into the hole $$$$ wise.

As for people hating the police... Some do and some don't. Thing is, your idea falls apart when you look at a) how many people do like the police and b) take a look at some of the large departments around the country that have lowered their hiring standards to address their shortages. When you leave the Extreme Far Left Camp, you can actually meet a lot of people who like their local police officers. Strange to your mind it seems, but true nonetheless. And if you look at where the standards have been lowered to allow things like having a set maximum of past felony convictions rather then no felony convictions, you'll see that the people joining the departments are the people that are supposed to "hate" the police.

Ben Lesar: And with good reason. Many police are fascist authoritarians with hard ons for shooting or tazing completely innocent people."

Oh, wait, you do enjoy looking foolish. Been listening to a Randi Rhodes marathon in your Ipod this weekend? Hey, do the idiot thing and cry about how the put 50,000 volts into somebody. People just sound so damned funny when they do that to anybody who actually knows what's being discussed.

Most all cops are just regular guys. Lots of cops are liberals on top of that. Do we get the odd idiot who slips past the screening that likes to go on power trips or abuse the authority? Yeah. And we all work really hard to weed them out during training or get rid of them as soon as they want to show their stupidity on the job.

As for tazers... Well, you're obviously a king sized idiot, so explaining the ins and outs of training, the benefits of the tazer or any of the actual facts about tazers would only sail right over your head. Likely like the rest of this post did.

Sean: "Now, for more serious stuff, I'm embarrassed to say the only Hammer film I own is The Satanic Rites Of Dracula."

Well, that's what you get for wasting all that money at the dog track. I told you that myth about the dog "going" before the race was just silly. Still, that's hardly an excuse. Your IQ is hereby docked 50 points until you've added at least three more Hammer films to your collection.

Bill Mulligan: "I don't know...I'd still prefer a health insurance that didn't give me everything I wanted to none at all."

I agree, but I've seen a few plans for my area that are so bare bones as to practically be nothing themselves. If all I could have afforded was to waste the money on a plan that I could almost never use or or that barely covered me VS trying to set aside money and pray for the best... It might be a tough call depending on the plan and the level of my finances.

Bill Mulligan: "Jerry, in all fairness, you should have quoted the very next line: "Those are high.""

No, in all fairness in this case, it was irrelevant. MM was playing an old trick that she and others love to play. She threw out the high number to get it into everybody's head and then added her quick line about that being high. If you read the posts from her readers, that number is now a fact to them. It's not the first time she or others have employed that trick. It's like the old saw about everybody hearing that you were accused/charged of a crime, but nobody seems to remember you being cleared of the crime. she knows that throwing out that high number will make it stick in peoples minds, so her then saying that it was a high number means nothing.

Bill Mulligan: "... (of course, without knowing what houses in the neighborhood go for, that's useless. I've seen shacks in Aspen going for a cool million)."

It's not even that. As Den touched on, it's what the house was bought for that counts. My house has doubled in its estimated value since I purchased it five years ago. That's in part to work done on it and in part to what's going on around my area. Still, that's nothing to my friends situation. He paid just shy of $90,000 for his house about eight years ago. It was in a quiet little out of the way place where no one really went. He had to drive 40 minutes to get to work, but he was fine with that until gas went crazy. He's looking to sell now. Because the area near him built up so much and his area started taking in a number of people who were moving toward the newer jobs in Richmond, his immediate area has grown substantially and become a hot little real estate location. He's been told by the broker that a $360,000 price tag is almost guaranteed to sell his house before the year is out. I'd believe it. Smaller, less nice homes near hs have sold for more then that in the last year.

Bill Mulligan: "Hey, how about VAMPIRE CIRCUS?"

Good one, but I haven't seen it in as long as you make it seem that you haven't seen Kronos. I'll have to dig around for that one somewhere.

bobb alfred: "And it's hard to imagine a middle-class family having the means to provide for 10 children."

One day, my girlfriend was talking with a new caseworker in what was then her department (Foster Care & Family Reunification). The newbie expressed the opinion that the poor have just as much right to procreate as anyone else, and that no one has the right to tell them otherwise.

My girlfriend turned to a veteran coworker and asked her, "How many children do you have?"

The veteran coworker replied, "Four."

My girlfriend then asked, "How many would you have had if money wasn't an issue for you and your husband?"

The veteran coworker replied, "Seven. Maybe eight. I love kids."

The newbie had such an epiphany that she looked as though she'd just seen the face of God.

Ben Lesar: "Den, they don't need to hire anyone to guard their stores. Cops don't do it now. They don't prevent crime... they come in afterwards trying to look all professional."

Just because crime occurs despite the existence of police doesn't prove they "don't prevent crime." I suspect we'd have a lot more crime if we had no police.

Ben Lesar: "If for the first half of our history we were able to go without police, I am sure we can do it again."

You would be wrong. Back in the day, there were fewer guns available. Those that were available were far less powerful than those monsters crooks get their hands on today. International terrorism on the scale of 9/11 wasn't an issue back in 1776. It is now. Things change. Those who don't adapt, perish.

Ben Lesar: "Jerry, the reason they are having trouble recruiting is that people hate the police."

Speak for yourself. I don't hate ANYONE I don't know. In fact, I try not to hate anyone I do know.

Ben Lesar: "Many police are fascist authoritarians with hard ons for shooting or tazing completely innocent people."

Define "many." Seriously. How many police use unjustified force each year? Give me a number. And how do you know the force was unjustified? Give me evidence. If you can't, you are farting out of your mouth.

I have been trying to avoid expressing negative emotions in my posts of late. It just doesn't seem productive. But Ben, you've insulted Jerry Chandler, who happens to be one of my best friends as well as a police officer. Jerry is one of the most moral, ethical, compassionate, and thoughtful people I know. You, on the other hand, appear to be unintelligent, unpleasant, uneducated, and an asshat.

You know, I thought I'd just come back here and enjoy myself. But there's always got to be a shit like Ben Lesar in the mix, doesn't there?

Den, they don't need to hire anyone to guard their stores. Cops don't do it now. They don't prevent crime... they come in afterwards trying to look all professional. If for the first half of our history we were able to go without police, I am sure we can do it again.

Well, you've just demonstrated that you truly don't understand how complex our society has become due to the increase in population and technology. You're comparing a time when the worldwide population was about 1/2 billion to today, when it's 6.5 billion. Seriously, how would this "volunteer" police force work in a city like New York today? Would "volunteer" forensic technicians collect fingerprint and DNA evidence and analyze them in "volunteer" labs? Would "volunteer" detectives conduct interrogations of suspects, and if so, what standard of conduct would they follow? Should "volunteer" detectives be allowed to use waterboarding to get confessions or should they skip the sissy stuff and go completely medieval on them? Should "volunteer" DA's prosecute cases presiding over by "volunteer" judges who sentence convicts to prisons guarded by "volunteer" prison guards?

Look up the crime statistics of even a medium-sized city in the US and then tell me where all these "volunteers" would come from and how they'd have to the time for all this "volunteer" work and still work their full-time jobs.

Jerry, the reason they are having trouble recruiting is that people hate the police. Wearing the uniform makes you a target. And with good reason. Many police are fascist authoritarians with hard ons for shooting or tazing completely innocent people.

And now you've just demonstrated that you're a troll. Shrouded.

Den, I've come to appreciate your passion for your beliefs but I would hardly categorize the people who criticized the anti-Petraeus MoveOn ad as believing that he should be "treated as if he has Christ-like infallibility".

Well, we can agree to disagree on that point. Certainly, the message sent from the masters of the manufactured outrage was that anything Petraeus said was automatically considered above reproach.

In any event, I'd still like to know when a person crosses that line and becomes fair game for criticism.. My point is that Michelle Malkin was one of the people on the forefront of screaming about how mean ole' moveon.org was picking on Petraeus and then she goes and starts harassing the relatives and coworkers of the Frosts in order to dig up dirt on them. I realize that intellectual honesty and consistancy is an unreasonable standard to expect her to uphold, but I try.

Re: Volunteer police. It would only work in a world that doesn't need police. Why did it for a fledgling country? As Den points out, fewer people. Less crime overall. Here's another thought...fewer guns, yes, but more guns per capita. Maybe put a better way, a higher % of homes that had guns in them. Sure, you could try to rob someone's home...but chances were, that homeowner had a weapon lying around, and a decent chance he's a good shot with it.

An all-volunteer police force would only work now in a world with very low crime. Because in a high-crime world, you can't have part-time, unpaid cops that have to worry about getting back to their paying job enforcing the law for you. Now replace cops with any other social service provided by the government. Sure, those functions could be provided by private groups...but then you'd have no control or accountability over how they do their jobs. Maybe you piss off the company president, and he issues orders to not respond to your house if you call. There's nothing that prevents personal discrimination by a private entity in this country.

"One day, my girlfriend was talking with a new caseworker in what was then her department (Foster Care & Family Reunification). The newbie expressed the opinion that the poor have just as much right to procreate as anyone else, and that no one has the right to tell them otherwise."

This captures a point of this issue well. While I think it's irresponsible of any person to plan to bring children into the world when they don't have the means...or (for clarity) the apparant means, misfortune notwithstanding...to provide for those children, I don't also think that such irresponsibility should be legislatively prevented. While I think we'd eliminate a good number of the social ills we face today if we made parenting a licensed, regulated practice, I find that level of social control to be opposed to the concept of a truly free society. Or one that even resembles a free society.

"Craig, maybe someday you'll be generous enough to explain the virtue in you bestowing on me -- under any sense of fairness -- the privilege to tell you you have no cojones, when all I have to do to meet your challenge is dig out my high school diploma."

So... you want me to show my balls to your high school diploma?

Can anybody help me out? I need some "Mike-speak" interpretation here.

Ben Lesar: "Den, they don't need to hire anyone to guard their stores. Cops don't do it now. They don't prevent crime... they come in afterwards trying to look all professional."

Bill Myers: "Just because crime occurs despite the existence of police doesn't prove they "don't prevent crime." I suspect we'd have a lot more crime if we had no police."

Well, it also goes to show that he doesn't understand one of the reasons that community policing succeeds for so many departments or how increasing your police officers presence in high crime areas often works in part because it acts as deterrent.

One thing police do is look for suspicious activity that would indicate criminal activity may be about to happen. One time, I went up to question a guy about looking into several cars on Grace Street and discreetly pulling the car door handles late one evening. he took off running. When another officer and I stopped him, it turned out that he was off his meds, believed that his ex-wife (who we learned in court didn't even exist) had hired people to kill him and was looking to hide in the back seat of a car. Oh, and he was armed with two large butcher's knives and a pocket knife. I wonder what would have happened if the owner of some car got in and started driving off? No, no crime was prevented there, Ben.

One guy I know spotted to guys heading down to a strip mall late one Sunday evening with a couple of large, empty (or so he thought) backpacks. seemed odd as the strip mall didn't have any businesses open after 6 PM on Sundays. He followed at a distance, saw them go behind the mall and waited a few minutes for them to come out the other side of the parking lot. When they didn't, he drove around the back and discovered them starting to have a go at the outside wall of one of the stores with metal mallets. No... No crime was prevented there. Nor did he in any way take on the function of guarding the stores I the area.

We had a large Mall with a number of higher end stores built out in Short Pump a few years back. The first order the police had from the locality? Keep heavy patrols in the area and drive through the mall's parking lot after hours to show an active and regular police presence. The reason? To, and you can say it with me, Ben, prevent crime by acting as a deterrent to the local scumbags.

What Ben doesn't know about police work could likely fill several large bookshelves worth of books. This fact of life obviously isn't a deterrent to Ben from proving that fact though.

bobb alfred" Because in a high-crime world, you can't have part-time, unpaid cops that have to worry about getting back to their paying job enforcing the law for you."

Well, yeah... If you wanted to give the simple, obvious answer rather then the complicated, long winded examples I did.

Sheesh... I gotta start remembering to think smaller and simpler more often.

~8?\

"Ignoring the fact that Jerry is a cop and you've just personally insulted someone who was engaged in a perfectly reasonable discourse with you, the notion that police deserve to be "targets" is just nuts. Sorry if you've had a bad experience with cops but that doesn't make wild assertions any more plausible."

Bill, I am not the one making wild assertions. First, I did not personally insult anyone. Bashing an occupation *in general* is not personal. Especially when you don't know the person you are talking to is in that field. If someone on this blog said that many politicians are crooks and someone else happened to be a politician, would that be a personal insult? If someone happens to take it personally that is not my fault. Second, I did not use the word "deserve" anywhere. That is a moral claim; I was referring to a logical one. Which is why I used the term "and with good REASON." That said, I regret using the ambiguous word "many," as I have no idea how many police are actually like that. It was late and I was in a hurry.

Sean, you are creating a straw man. I didn't say I don't think anyone should provide services to deal with such problems; just that government shouldn't. Either private business or charity (often both) are reasonable alternatives in those cases.

"Most all cops are just regular guys. Lots of cops are liberals on top of that. Do we get the odd idiot who slips past the screening that likes to go on power trips or abuse the authority? Yeah. And we all work really hard to weed them out during training or get rid of them as soon as they want to show their stupidity on the job."

Ever heard of the Milgram Experiment or the Stanford Prison Experiment? They prove that "regular guys" when given the power to do whatever they want... often do whatever they want.

"You would be wrong. Back in the day, there were fewer guns available. Those that were available were far less powerful than those monsters crooks get their hands on today. International terrorism on the scale of 9/11 wasn't an issue back in 1776. It is now. Things change. Those who don't adapt, perish."

This is the most common and fallacious argument in favor of totalitarian dictatorship. "We are living in a post-9/11 world. 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11..."

"Speak for yourself. I don't hate ANYONE I don't know. In fact, I try not to hate anyone I do know."

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said I hate anyone. I said "people" hate the police. It is a generalization to indicate there are many who do hate the police. It was obvious it was not intended to mean everybody. After all, police are people too, and unless they are all self-hating and their families hate them too clearly not everyone hates police.

"You, on the other hand, appear to be unintelligent, unpleasant, uneducated, and an asshat."

Bill (Mulligan), what Bill (Myers) just said, that is a personal insult, and a baseless one at that.

Den uses the same logic as Bill Myers in defending the modern "police" state. I assume you are both against the War in Iraq? How does it feel to be using the same (faulty) logic as George W. Bush?

Anyway, a note to all: I am not for anarchy. I am not proposing vigilante justice in place of police. I am proposing volunteers in place of professionals. An appointed volunteer sheriff of sorts for each community. In addition to neighborhood watch groups. Personally I don't care how New York or other big cities want to deal with crime; if they want large police organizations that is their business. But the way things are now personal responsibility goes to the wayside and people refuse to defend themselves or their neighbors because our philosophy is that government should take care of it. That is destructive to society. If people in big cities aren't interested in forming close-knit communities (all that is required for volunteer law enforcement to work even in a "post-9/11" world), I will be fine with that as long as the rest of America is allowed to deal with its own law enforcement.

Ben Lesar: "Wearing the uniform makes you a target. And with good reason."

I read this in haste the first time, and missed the full implications.

Now I'm beyond pissed. My blood is boiling.

Did you, Ben Lesar, you little fuck, just imply that police DESERVE to be targets? That people like Jerry, who have a wife, a kid, an extended family, and friends who care about them are "targets" -- and with "good reason?"

Let me tell you something about Jerry. He'd sooner put himself in harm's way than to unnecessarily harm another human being.

He's also one of the most giving people I know. Even though we've never met in person (although Jeannie and I will be swinging by his pad, among others, when we take our road trip in 2008), when he found out I was having a rough time at work he reached out to me and offered his support. It meant a lot.

Jerry has also told me about a cop who had to kill someone in the line of duty. It was justified beyond a doubt. Nevertheless, he had trouble shaving after that -- because he literally couldn't bear to look at his own reflection in the mirror.

He left the force.

So don't you DARE tell me that there is EVER a good reason why my friend, and his fellow police officers, should be targets just because they wear the badge.

Has it occurred to you that the news reports you see about bad cops are the exception and not the rule? Because, y'know, most cops have careers that are too "boring" to make the news. They do their jobs without using excessive force or abrogating people's rights, and that doesn't make for good T.V. news ratings.

I'm betting the answer is "no," it hasn't occurred to you. Because you are an unrepentant, irredeemable and snotty little cocksucker.

Ben Lesar: "Bill (Mulligan), what Bill (Myers) just said, that is a personal insult, and a baseless one at that."

You're half right. I insulted you, but it was anything but "baseless."

That said, you're just trolling now and I have no further time for you.

Ben Lesar, there's a fundamental problem with your suggestion that we replace professional, public police services with volunteer or private police services: your system is still going to filled by people, no? What makes you think a volunteer/private police group is going to be able to do the job of a public force any better?

And by better, I mean the obvious things: less crime rate, more crimes prevented, etc. Also some less obvious things: fewer incidents of excessive/unecessary force, smaller rate of mistaken arrest, etc.

Just how, exactly, are these replacement services going to avoid the same pratfalls that happen now? You're own examples of the Milford and Stanford prison experiments demonstrate that power abuse isn't something unique to police officers, that maybe there's some inherant to human make that certain personality types will succumb to the tempations of power when given the opportunity?

The fact is, if your force is voluntary...assuming you have a means to avoid the problem of finding people with enough free time and financial security to not have to work for a paycheck to give you enough bodies for such a private force...you don't have any stable chain of command. And with a private force, you have no accountability. You have no means to prevent discrimination in any real sense. Without public oversight on some level, you have a system increasingly vulnerable to graft and corruption, one where those with money will have protection, while those without will suffer and be left to fend for themselves.

What you propose is possible. But not favorable over the system we have. Do we have some examples of bad eggs within the ranks of the police? Sure we do. But suggesting that some rare, albeit very public, examples of power abuse is no reason to suggest trashing a very effective and fair system.

Using that logic, we should abandon our current two-parent system for child rearing. After all, with the inevitable child that's left trapped in a car that dies during the summer, it's apparant that two parents cannot raise children safely. Or maybe we should dump the requirement for child seats, as maybe the solution is to allow the child to wander around, thus be more likely to be spotted in the car?

You assume that the current system is broken because some loud-mouthed kid gets tasered in the middle of a prank he was pulling in a very public forum. Or because a few cops get out of control during the excerise of their duties. Your replacement suggestion would leave us more vulnerable to those kinds of events than the one we have now.

Posted by: Jerry Chandler

Bill Mulligan: "I don't know...I'd still prefer a health insurance that didn't give me everything I wanted to none at all."

I agree, but I've seen a few plans for my area that are so bare bones as to practically be nothing themselves. If all I could have afforded was to waste the money on a plan that I could almost never use or or that barely covered me VS trying to set aside money and pray for the best... It might be a tough call depending on the plan and the level of my finances.

You might consider health-care savings accounts (whatever the precise name is - HSA?) in which you, essentially, become your own insurer. As i think i understand it, you save money (tax free) in the account, and meanwhile carry catastrophic-illness insurance with a high deductible. For routine medical costs, you tap the HSA. For bigger stuff, you have the insurance, but with like a $1000 deductible...

Posted by: Den

Den, I've come to appreciate your passion for your beliefs but I would hardly categorize the people who criticized the anti-Petraeus MoveOn ad as believing that he should be "treated as if he has Christ-like infallibility".

Well, we can agree to disagree on that point. Certainly, the message sent from the masters of the manufactured outrage was that anything Petraeus said was automatically considered above reproach.

What i find hilarious about the whole "Betray Us" thing is that editorial cartoonist Jeff Danziger used exactly the same play on words in a nationally-syndicated cartoon (showing grunts on the ground sayoing to the general as he left for Washington "General, don't betray us") and no-one said anything.

Posted by: Ben Lesar

Ignoring the fact that Jerry is a cop and you've just personally insulted someone who was engaged in a perfectly reasonable discourse with you, the notion that police deserve to be "targets" is just nuts. Sorry if you've had a bad experience with cops but that doesn't make wild assertions any more plausible.

Bill, I am not the one making wild assertions. First, I did not personally insult anyone. Bashing an occupation *in general* is not personal. Especially when you don't know the person you are talking to is in that field.

Which, since Jerry has mentioned numerous times that he is a cop would tend to confirm an apparently generally-held opinion around here that you're a troll who hunts for places to spew your ignorant (used in the precise meaning of "not knowing anything about the subject") rants.

And "bashing an occupation *in general* is not personal"? So if i say that Texas politicians are know-nothing right wing megalomaniac chicken-hawk draft-dodging/ deserter ideologues (based on the most prominent example of a "Texas" politician currently available) i'm not insulting Texas politicians who aren't (if there are any since Anne Richards' death)?

This is the most common and fallacious argument in favor of totalitarian dictatorship. "We are living in a post-9/11 world. 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11..."

Generally advanced by people on your apparent side of the discussion.

Anyway, a note to all: I am not for anarchy. I am not proposing vigilante justice in place of police. I am proposing volunteers in place of professionals. An appointed volunteer sheriff of sorts for each community. In addition to neighborhood watch groups. Personally I don't care how New York or other big cities want to deal with crime; if they want large police organizations that is their business. But the way things are now personal responsibility goes to the wayside and people refuse to defend themselves or their neighbors because our philosophy is that government should take care of it. That is destructive to society. If people in big cities aren't interested in forming close-knit communities (all that is required for volunteer law enforcement to work even in a "post-9/11" world), I will be fine with that as long as the rest of America is allowed to deal with its own law enforcement.

Proving, once again, that you have no concept of how society works.

Have you ever watched the dynamics of volunteerism on such a scale?

Having watched any number of volunteer/co-operative organisations in action, i see it as a general rule that the more important/influential the organisation, the more likely it is to be co-opted by organised extremist groups.

This is because such groups' members make it a point to join such organisations in numbers out of proportion to their actual representation in the community, vote as a bloc in choosing objectives, and are less l;ikely to get bored and fall away. (In fact, they actively hope that others *will* fall away.)

In the case of "volunteer" policing, i can easily see Marxists, the KKK and other such groups - of the left or the right - using such tactics. This is how the {!GODWIN ALERT!} Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (DAP) [German Workers Party] was reconstituted as the National Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP) [National Socialist German Workers Party] (generally known as the "Nazi Party"), and its original organisers [themselves members of the Thule Society (a right-wing organisation itself)] forced out.

[Here in the Atlanta area, i've seen at least three community/"alternative" newspapers run as co-operative/volunteer organisations taken over by anarcho-socialists or marxist groups, and a community-funded non-commercial FM station taken over by people who over time changed it from being genuinely representative of the community in general to pandering to the interests (as perceived by people in ideological blinkers) of a limited subset of the community.]

Posted by: bobb alfred

Ben Lesar, there's a fundamental problem with your suggestion that we replace professional, public police services with volunteer or private police services: your system is still going to filled by people, no? What makes you think a volunteer/private police group is going to be able to do the job of a public force any better?

Well, of course it will, just look at non-governmental police/security organisations like Blackwater for proof.

I mean, Ben understands that it's not like it's necessary to apply minimum standards of mental and physical health and professionalism on people who want to be cops...

[sarcasm mode off]

Prior to the formation of Scotland Yard, London had the Bow Street Runners, a semi-official police force who were the best cops money could buy.

And often did.

People rather like Ben resisted the formation of a professional police with "arguments" rather similar to his. Horrible consequences to the liberty of the people were foretold.

The result?

While freely acknowledged as less than perfect in some ways, Scotland Yard is widely regarded as one of the best police forces in the world, an example for others.

=====================

Oh, yeah, in my previous post, i forgot to mention the way that the revolution touched off by the Mensheviks, who were fairly moderate, was co-opted by the Bolsheviks, who were later co-opted by Lenin and Trotsky (one of whom was murdered in exile) and in turn subverted by Stalin.

And we can all see how wonderfully *that* came out.

Or (on the level of personal experience, rather then observation or history) the way that an Atlanta SF club's newsletter became a vehicle for its editor's personal vendetta deriving from the Atlanta SF WorldCon, leading to schism in the club... (Kathleen prolly remembers that one.)

Ben Lesar: "Ever heard of the Milgram Experiment or the Stanford Prison Experiment?"

Yes, I have heard of them. And if you’re using them to show how professional police who are basically regular guys “when given the power to do whatever they want... often do whatever they want,” you should think about how much worse things would be without the psychological screening, training, supervised on the job field training, testing, annual/semi-annual re-certifications, monthly and annual evaluations, etc. Your point cuts your argument apart far more powerfully then it does mine.

Ben Lesar: “This is the most common and fallacious argument in favor of totalitarian dictatorship.”

No, you just missed the point (big surprise). Today, as just one example, Chesterfield County’s population is somewhere between 290,000 to 316,000 people in an area of 446 square miles of land. At the time of its founding in 1749, it had only a few hundred people at best. Can you sorta see the dif between a couple of part time LEO’s working an area with that small a population, and mostly made up of farmers and whatnot, VS trying to police 316,000 people 24/7?

Ben Lesar: “Den uses the same logic as Bill Myers in defending the modern "police" state. I assume you are both against the War in Iraq? How does it feel to be using the same (faulty) logic as George W. Bush?”

I don’t know. How do you feel about displaying so plainly for all to see that you haven’t the first clue what you’re going on about?

Bill Myers: “Now I'm beyond pissed. My blood is boiling.”

Thanks, but just let that one slide for now. Like I said when we were all debating Imus and the usage of racial epitaphs; something said to you by an idiot or someone you don’t care about really should be meaningless and powerless against you. I’ll point out when Ben is displaying ignorance of my profession or just plain suggesting completely idiotic ideas as “answers” to the problems out there, but I’m ignoring remarks like that. That remark simply proved that Ben is an idiot and therefore has no true power to insult. He’s a laughable fool. No reason to get your blood pressure up just yet.

But, beyond that… Thanks for the kind words.

Bobb, that there is no chain of command is what gives them the accountability. Right now police protect their own and the common citizen can do nothing as the courts protect them too. Volunteer law enforcement would be authorized by consent. If someone abuses their authority that consent is taken away. Therefore they have no real power and are less likely to try to abuse it. Power corrupts.

"Which, since Jerry has mentioned numerous times that he is a cop would tend to confirm an apparently generally-held opinion around here that you're a troll who hunts for places to spew your ignorant (used in the precise meaning of "not knowing anything about the subject") rants."

Mr. Weber, you jump in with no idea what you are talking about and call me ignorant? Did you not even bother to read how police were first brought up? Here's a hint: it wasn't by me. I was asked why I support police and firemen but not other socialized services, and answered that I don't support them and explained why.

"Generally advanced by people on your apparent side of the discussion."

And yet... my "side" isn't the one using it. Again, who is the ignorant one?

As far as the NSDAP is concerned: they came to power through government.

Blackwater is a fascist (in the literal sense) organization. They are hired by the government, not by the consent of the people they are "protecting," to kill people and break things.

Again, those are government forces at work. Early American militias never did anything like that.

Jerry, I've already addressed your first argument when responding to Bobb; they would have no "real" power. Our own history, and history in general, shows that this works.

"That remark simply proved that Ben is an idiot and therefore has no true power to insult."

Calling someone an idiot doesn't make it so. Whenever anyone has a belief that is radical by today's standards, nevermind that it is the historical norm, is this how you respond? And you wonder why people consider police to be narrowminded authoritarians that don't tolerate dissent...

Ben, and I know this is likely a total waste of time, the system changed because the system:

A) Didn’t work that well to begin with except in the minds of those who think that “the way we used to do it” was always better then it really was.

And…

B) Even where it was working to some degree or another, the population growths made the old system useless. The new system was put into place to fix the failings of the old.

Ben Lesar: “Bobb, that there is no chain of command is what gives them the accountability.”

Yeah… That’s, to be very kind, really stupid. It was those set ups in the past that lead to graft, bribery and abuses of power where the wealthy or the crafty screwed the poor or the innocent into the ground. No chain of command also leads to really stupid decisions by those that need the chain of command most. It also, despite your… ideas… leads to absolutely no true accountability whatsoever.

Ben Lesar: “Right now police protect their own and the common citizen can do nothing as the courts protect them too.”

You know what would be a really nice change of pace for you, Ben? How about you take your head out of your assumption ridden left wing propaganda sites and reading materials for a while and join us in the real world of facts. Most police officers dislike anyone who tarnishes the badge. We try and get rid of that person. We had two guys in my academy that several of us were trying to get booted after about three weeks of being around them. As it was, it took less then a year for their own department to get rid of them once they were out on the street. And judges hate crooked cops.

Do you get news stories these days about what you’re talking about? Sure. But only a handful of them are legit and they’re not representative of the majority of police officers out there. And even then, many of those are actually based more on the press and the public having no understanding of adrenalin & reflexive firing and absolutely no knowledge whatsoever about a tazer or how it really works.

Ben Lesar: "Wearing the uniform makes you a target. And with good reason."

Bill Myers: “Now I'm beyond pissed. My blood is boiling.”

Me: “That remark simply proved that Ben is an idiot and therefore has no true power to insult. “

And this leads to…

Ben Lesar: “Whenever anyone has a belief that is radical by today's standards, nevermind that it is the historical norm, is this how you respond? And you wonder why people consider police to be narrowminded authoritarians that don't tolerate dissent...”

Oooooookay. You’re a… funny… guy, Ben. Too bad it’s not in the “ha ha” kinda way.

(Backs slowly away from Ben...)

I have to say this. I don't think Ben is a troll, nor that he meant to insult anybody. Nor is he ignorant. What he is is deeply entrenched in an ideology, in his case I suspect its Liberterianism.

Talking with people like that (is ideoloigized a word?) -- Libertarians, anarchists, communists, evangelicals(?), some feminists, conspiracy theorists(?) -- is at the same time fascinating and annoying, and usually goes around in circles.

They start by asking good interesting questions --what is wrong with the world? how can it be fixed? -- it is good to question reallity. But the answers they provide seems to come from a very theoretical, very schematic, very closed and undisputed body of work developed by a group of respected ideologues. And everything they encounter seems to fit very neatly into those theoretical structures. These structures provides very clear explanations and the answers to the ills of the world, and it is only because of the blindness and conformity of the majority of the population that they don't get it. And until they do, it is up to this in group of people in the know the keep the truth alive.

So when Ben was talking about police he was not talking about Jerry, but about schematic theoretical image of a police as it fits into his ideology -- a cop is a totalitarian fascist tool of the government, period. Private or volunteer cops are not. It's as simple as that. You can no more argue with that than remove a chemical element from the periosdic table.

I have nothing to add to what already be said on the specific issues, nor is there much point.

I highly recommend Ursula la Guinn's Dispossessed about an anarchist society, and Heinlein's the Moon is a Harsh Mistress for a Liberterian society. The former is more critical of the society it describes..

This is the most common and fallacious argument in favor of totalitarian dictatorship. "We are living in a post-9/11 world. 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11..."

Generally advanced by people on your apparent side of the discussion.

I'm not sure what you think Ben's "side" of the discussion is. I'm finding this POV fairly unique outside of some of my old radical hippy friends and even they have mellowed with age and repeated muggings.

I did not use the word "deserve" anywhere. That is a moral claim; I was referring to a logical one. Which is why I used the term "and with good REASON."

Well, here's how I see it: when you state "Wearing the uniform makes you a target. And with good reason. Many police are fascist authoritarians with hard ons for shooting or tazing completely innocent people." it seems to me that a perfectly reasonable interpretation of that is that the police are justifiably targeted because of the tendency of many to kill and harm innocent people. Saying that targeting cops is a reasonable thing to do but not a moral thing to do seems to me to be a distinction without a difference.

Whatever points you could make about the desirability of this strict libertarian view of how things ought to be, using attacks on police as a springboard isn't the way to go about it. I think the idea of an all volunteer and/or charity force replacing government is unworkable and undesirable but there could be a good discussion on it. I think that's been lost.

Bill, I tried to ask Ben to explain how his all-volunteer police would work. He ignored it in favor of saying I was using "authoritarian" arguments, which is totally laughable.

It's time to stop feeding the trolls.

Ben, there's some news today you might want to check out from Chicago...the police Special Operations Section has been disbanded because it was essentially corrupt and abusing it's power. That's a public service group, by they way.

Meanwhile, Blackwater, which is immune to prosecution under Iraqi and presumably American law, is free to kill and terrorize the very people they are paid to protect the interests of...if not the people themselves. Blackwater isn't likely to be disbanded any time soon, so far as anyone can tell. By the way, Blackwater is a volunteer/private force, meaning every single member elected to join up for that specific job.

A volunteer force would serve by the consent of the people? Does this mean that our police would be subject to elections? How does that work? You can't really fire volunteers, can you?

What you suggest is a semi-organized vigilante force, which works only so well as that force doesn't fracture. Once those fractures begin...and history proves that they will happen...you'll end up with competing vigilante forces, which really is just one small step away from pretty much repeating most of world history's most significant wars and conflicts.

On a small scale, especially where survival is a daily struggle, what you suggest works great. Once you get past that, though, and amass a sizeable civilian population, it falls apart.

"How about you take your head out of your assumption ridden left wing propaganda sites and reading materials for a while and join us in the real world of facts."

First Mike Weber accuses me of being a Bushie and then you accuse me of being left wing.

"It was those set ups in the past that lead to graft, bribery and abuses of power where the wealthy or the crafty screwed the poor or the innocent into the ground."

They would not be susceptible to bribery as they would not be permanently in office. There would be neighborhood watches and militias. Organized crime wouldn't have a chance to thrive as long as we didn't outlaw things that gave them income. Illegal drugs today, just as prohibition in the twenties, is what fuels crime.

"But only a handful of them are legit and they’re not representative of the majority of police officers out there. And even then, many of those are actually based more on the press and the public having no understanding of adrenalin & reflexive firing and absolutely no knowledge whatsoever about a tazer or how it really works."

Here is one of the latest stories; admittedly he is off duty, but it shows that these are not made up or "misunderstandings."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/2007/10/09/2007-10-09_wisconsin_cop_snapped_after_being_called-1.html

Micha is right, I am a libertarian. Small "l," I don't have any party affiliations.

Bill, unlike your hippy friends I am in favor of concealed carry.

I didn't use anything as a springboard. I was asked a question and answered it, and gave my reason why.

Den, that is nonsense. You said things wouldn't work and I replied that your argument is horrible. I have also given an explanation of how it would work. I am not going to write a whole paper on the matter though. If you want to know more about how it would work, read a history book.

Micha,

It could be argued that Ben is a rabid ideologue rather then a troll, but I’m leaning more towards idiot with trollish leanings. Ben tends to declare his points in broad, sweeping and insulting ways while claiming that no insults were made by him. My first post in response to Ben in this thread may have been a little on the harsher side because I still have a bad taste in my mouth in regards to him from the religious bigotry and insulting nature of his post from the ” LIFE IMITATES ART” thread from earlier this year.

He did much the same there that he’s now repeating here. He threw out insulting statements and often declared even his most nonsensical points the height of logic while claiming everyone else was wrong, arguing from emotion, etc. Like I said, he’s an idiot with trollish leanings. He’s not skilled enough to be a good troll and he seems to genuinely believe what he’s saying. Mores the pity there.

Bobb, did you not read what I said about Blackwater before? They are hired by the government. A public-private partnership which is not libertarian at all. Not to mention that they are not doing anything by the Iraqi people's consent at all.

If for the first half of our history we were able to go without police, I am sure we can do it again.

For the first half of our history, the most modern computing device was the Jacquard loom. I don't see how you haven't just given me the privilege to tell you to get off your computer.

Volunteer law enforcement would be authorized by consent. If someone abuses their authority that consent is taken away. Therefore they have no real power and are less likely to try to abuse it. Power corrupts.

Other than the absence of pay, how is what you say different than what we have now?

Is that your point, that receiving money reduces the quality of one's work? Doesn't that simply mean you are unqualified for anything you accept compensation for?

Blackwater is a fascist (in the literal sense) organization. They are hired by the government, not by the consent of the people they are "protecting," to kill people and break things....

Bobb, did you not read what I said about Blackwater before? They are hired by the government. A public-private partnership which is not libertarian at all. Not to mention that they are not doing anything by the Iraqi people's consent at all.

Blackwater are not police, and they would kick the ass of any assembly of volunteers. You only provide evidence of the disadvantages of dismantling the police as we know them.

Please indicate the subject of your sentence to those of us who learned to read and write English in the wild west of public education.

It's hilarious that you would even attempt to include yourself in such a group, Mike.

You are welcome to put me in my place anytime you feel like bringing out one of my many sentences you can't find the subject to, Craig. Until then: attempted and succeeded.

Man, I wish I lived in a world of delusions like Mike. Life would be so much easier then.

Craig, maybe someday you'll be generous enough to explain the virtue in you bestowing on me -- under any sense of fairness -- the privilege to tell you you have no cojones, when all I have to do to meet your challenge is dig out my high school diploma.

So... you want me to show my balls to your high school diploma?

Can anybody help me out? I need some "Mike-speak" interpretation here.

My post requires no response, Craig. Why would I ask you to do anything with balls you've given me the privilege of telling you are absent?

As something of a Revolutionary War buff(lapsed, unfortunatley) another reason I've long thought that crime was lower was the convenience factor. I could see someone right now knocking over a convenience store and then speeding off in whatever wheeled vehicle they choose. (BTW, the fact that I'm talking about the olden times' crimes being inconvenient by comparing it to knocking over a convenience store is completely unintentional. It was just convenient.) Now, look at back then. Knock over the general store in some towns, end up with a bunch of eggs and maybe a little cash. Have you ever tried carrying eggs while running or on a horse? Hell, I have trouble sometimes carrying them in a shopping cart. Anyway, Bobb, Den, everybody, what's your thinking on this?

""We are living in a post-9/11 world. 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11...""
I really expected either "all the livelong day" or "Its fleece was white as snow" at the end of that.

"Do you get news stories these days about what you’re talking about? Sure."
Part of the reason stories like this stick in people's heads is because of the juxtaposition of they who enforce the law breaking the law.

"is ideoloigized a word?)"
Well, it is now, Micha. Don't know if it was before and I'm too darn tired to check right now.

Jerry, how do you define "insulting?" Anything you disagree with? How can something be broad, sweeping and insulting?

"Blackwater are not police, and they would kick the ass of any assembly of volunteers. You only provide evidence of the disadvantages of dismantling the police as we know them."

Many militias in the United States are made up of former military, just like Blackwater. Many possible volunteers might be more capable in this regard than police.

They would not be susceptible to bribery as they would not be permanently in office.

If a cop stops me for a crime and I offer him a bribe to let me go, how does the length of time he will be a cop in any way prevent this bribery from occurring?

How long will they serve? Is it likely that there will be a long enough line of people willing to take their place to make this work? Since a majority--I will go so far as to guess that a vast majority--of the public would not go along with this idea, where are these people going to come from?

There would be neighborhood watches and militias. Organized crime wouldn't have a chance to thrive as long as we didn't outlaw things that gave them income. Illegal drugs today, just as prohibition in the twenties, is what fuels crime.

Hey, I'll agree with the idea of decriminalizing many of our current laws. Waste of time, better spent elsewhere.

But organized crime can find other means of support--organized robbery, organized extortion, murder for hire, etc.

I rather expect many would find the atmosphere of this new world of yours quite inviting, actually. Were I a crook I think I'd much rather go up against the amatures.

Actually, Ben, your example goes more toward backing our argument rather then yours. A sheriff's deputy is actually closer to what you propose then it is an officer. Sheriffs are elected, not hired. The people put them in place and the people can vote them out of a job every couple of years. The Sherriff’s deputies can, and quite often are in smaller departments, fired and replaced by friends and cronies of the new Sheriff when the new Sheriff takes office.

Most Sheriffs can terminate a deputy just because he doesn’t like the way he looks and there’s not a lot that the now ex-deputy can do about it. That can sometimes mean that a crooked Sheriff can remove honest deputies with nothing more then a wave of a hand and replace them with less then honest cronies. Many sheriffs departments also have less stringent training and hiring requirements the most police departments. There are exceptions of course and things are changing, but they are the exceptions.

Now, you take a dishonest Sheriff who caters to the majority white/wealthy/urban/whatever community to the detriment and damage of the minority groups in a community and there’s almost no chance of justice for the minority in the community. And there doesn’t even have to be malice on the part of the majority either. If the Sheriff serves the majority well, then he looks like he’s doing a good job to a majority of the voters who give him his power.

Your dismissal of the Blackwater example fails to actually dismiss the points we’ve made. The military, while having a few screw ups in it, is actually doing well over there as far as not doing reprehensible things. There are even American police officers working over there as police officers or training the locals to be police officers without managing to go nuts. They, like many of the soldiers, are professionals.

Blackwater is run by a private individual and composed mostly of amateur “soldiers” and “cops” with no real authority to answer to. The group that did the Iraq freeway shootings and video was set up much the same way. It’s what, whether you like it or not, you’re basically advocating for.

Now, if you want to have community groups that work with the police… That’s an all together different thing. But that’s not what you’ve been advocating. You’ve been advocating a system that is outdated and would fly apart at the seems in today’s world.

Ben Lesar: “If you want to know more about how it would work, read a history book.”

Thus the problem. That system is in history books for a reason. It stopped working effectively and was replaced long ago. And, if you actually read up on those systems, you’d see that there was a lot more graft and incompetence back then then you seem to want to admit. Selective reading I suppose.

Ben, you've explained nothing about how it would work. I asked a very detailed question about how it would work in even a medium-sized city and your reply was that you didn't care.

Now you say to "read history" rather than actually make an articulate argument. Well, nearly everyone here has already explained to you that what worked in an 18th century rural community would never work in the 21st century suburban world that most Americans live in today. And you have said nothing to counter any of those points.

You're idea of an argument amounts to "It will work because I say so". Seriously, if you want to convince people that your ideas will work, you have to give reasons other than your smug attitude that you're somehow smarter than everyone else, because, guess what? No one here believes that. You are without a doubt, the worst debater I have ever encountered. And given that this is an internet forum, that's saying something.

Ben Lesar: "Jerry, how do you define "insulting?" Anything you disagree with? How can something be broad, sweeping and insulting?"

Gee, I don't know... How about the statement that everybody else has already pointed out to you.

"Jerry, the reason they are having trouble recruiting is that people hate the police. Wearing the uniform makes you a target. And with good reason. Many police are fascist authoritarians with hard ons for shooting or tazing completely innocent people."

Wow. People here have already mentioned it and you still need to ask. You really are clueless.

""On the other hand who in their right mind has 10 kids if they can’t support them?"" ---Based on poll data, they're Republicans. Poor people who have no clue, but still think the Dems are after their guns and want to turn everybody homo... The GOP needs to take better care of this group...if they don't want to become a permanent minority.

Den: "You're idea of an argument amounts to "It will work because I say so".

Eh, him and George Bush

I believe in the free market when it works. But with health care, it absolutely DOES NOT WORK. Oh sure, it's a marvel if you're rich. But for the vast majority of us, it's an exclusive engagement and we're stuck outside in the rain. Everybody in my family has insurance and we're still SCARED TO DEATH to go to the doctor. The deductibles are often more than we can pay, let alone the whole bill. I'd much rather have what Canada has. Increase my taxes and eliminate my worry. Now THAT's a product worth paying for.

And the medical industry is hardly independent from the gov't anyway. They get billions in gov't aid for R&D (taxes, grants), so we're already paying for the part that GOP/cons say makes our system so great. So why shouldn't we ensure that we get our money's worth by actually receiving the services for a reasonable cost? But no, GOP/cons only want the gov't out when it comes to guaranteeing service for everybody; they want the gov't in-in-in when it comes to budget handouts...

So, Mulligan, who's your perfect Kronos in a remake (Well, other then me of course.)?

I could see Kevin McKidd doing the role justice. He was great in Dog Soldiers and I understand he's doing a good job in a new TV show that's getting him noticed on this side of the pond. And he wouldn't even have to hide his accent when playing Kronos.

Micha: "I have to say this. I don't think Ben is a troll, nor that he meant to insult anybody. Nor is he ignorant. What he is is deeply entrenched in an ideology, in his case I suspect its Liberterianism."

I must disagree with you, Micha. Ben advances stereotypes, which is a clear sign of ignorance. If he doesn't mean to insult, he needs to choose his words with infinitely more care. Finally, ideology and trollishness are not mutually exclusive.

But the less said about this latest troll to rear his ugly head, the better.

Bill Mulligan: "I think the idea of an all volunteer and/or charity force replacing government is unworkable and undesirable but there could be a good discussion on it. I think that's been lost."

Why has anything been lost? Ben doesn't have any power over this forum other than that which we give him. Watch me take it away from him.

I believe most people would agree that providing emergency services including firefighters and police, civil infrastructure such as roads and bridges, and a national defense are legitimate roles for government to play in society. If someone is too poor to pay for these things, we don't deny the benefits to them. The majority of us pay taxes with the understanding that these services are for the common good.

On the other hand, I think most of us would bristle at the idea of paying higher taxes so that the government can provide lower-income people with porsches and expensive Italian suits. After all, these things are luxuries, whereas police and fire protection are not.

Where does health care fall along this spectrum? Increasingly, I'm hearing more and more people opine that health care is similar to police protection: it is a basic service that ought to be provided for all, regardless of ability to pay. Even my girlfriend, a card-carrying member of the NRA, a former Republican (she is now equally disgusted with both major parties), and an undeniable conservative, believes that universal health care makes as much sense as "universal police protection."

While this issue has been touched upon in this thread, it hasn't been discussed in depth. Should health care occupy the same "space" as civil defense and infrastructure? If so, how should the government administer health care? Are we ready for universal health insurance? If health care should remain privatized, what do we do about the costs society incurs when those who cannot afford basic health care end up in the ER for problems that could have been prevented by a trip to a primary care physician?

Discuss.

Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 10, 2007 11:49 PM

Guess what? When you don’t refute an argument in a debate it stands.

[Today]

If for the first half of our history we were able to go without police, I am sure we can do it again.

For the first half of our history, the most modern computing device was the Jacquard loom. I don't see how you haven't just given me the privilege to tell you to get off your computer.

...the reason they are having trouble recruiting is that people hate the police. Wearing the uniform makes you a target. And with good reason. Many police are fascist authoritarians with hard ons for shooting or tazing completely innocent people.

...and you would remove all their accountability to the voters.

Volunteer law enforcement would be authorized by consent. If someone abuses their authority that consent is taken away. Therefore they have no real power and are less likely to try to abuse it. Power corrupts.

Other than the absence of pay, how is what you say different than what we have now?

Is that your point, that receiving money reduces the quality of one's work? Doesn't that simply mean you are unqualified for anything you accept compensation for?

Ben, you haven't denied you've given me the privilege to get off your computer, you haven't denied that dissolving police as a public service would remove accountability from peace-keeping, and you haven't given anyone anything else to imagine other than that you are saying that receiving a wage reduces the quality of one's work, from which it may be reasonably inferred that you are unqualified for any paid labor. By the standard you tried to hold to others cited at the top of this post, you lose.

""On the other hand who in their right mind has 10 kids if they can’t support them?"" ---Based on poll data, they're Republicans. Poor people who have no clue, but still think the Dems are after their guns and want to turn everybody homo... The GOP needs to take better care of this group...if they don't want to become a permanent minority.

Really? I've always read that the poor vote disproportionately Democratic. Your source? (I'm not doubting you, it's just the opposite of what I thought so I'd like to see some evidence).

So, Mulligan, who's your perfect Kronos in a remake (Well, other then me of course.)?

I could see Kevin McKidd doing the role justice. He was great in Dog Soldiers and I understand he's doing a good job in a new TV show that's getting him noticed on this side of the pond. And he wouldn't even have to hide his accent when playing Kronos.

I'm terrible at the casting game but anyone in Dog Soldiers is A-ok by me. Good call.

Now, who fills Caroline Munro's, um, shoes?

Bill Myers-- good points all.

One factor I kind of dread is that there will come a point where the only way to make a Universal system work is to exert a great deal of control over the health choices made by people. We can't allow folks to smoke, drink to excess, consume fatty food, take recreational drugs, drive fast cars, etc, etc, if we also expect to make every single medical procedure available to all for free (and if we don't, tell me who is going to be the one who tells the kid with cancer that his experimental treatment is too expensive. Or the guy who's 80 year old mom needs a new heart that she's lived long enough. Or the family with the 11 ounce preemie that there isn't enough money to take care of their kid and the 100 kids who actually have a chance to live.

You say that the HMOs and insurance companies do that now? Yes. Yes they do.

When the government is in control they won't. They can't. Who's gonna be the bad guy willing to kill the old lady, the baby, the kid with cancer? So the cost will go up. Big time. If there is one rule it's that benefits can never go down because the politicians will get fired if they try.

I'd like to think that savings can be made in efficiency and streamlining and stuff like that. I don't see the government as having a terrific history of pulling that off. Am I being cynical?

Ok, so we have an expensive system that keeps getting more expensive. taxes can only go so high before they begin to hurt the economy and reduce revenues, making the situation worse. You can only cut doctors salaries so far before they go into other, better jobs. They're smart, hard working people, capable of success in other fields, so we'd better be careful about treating them too badly.

What's left? You keep people from getting sick and costing us money. That's a noble goal. It's cost effective. You may have to give up a few choices you have now...but there ain't no free lunch. Certainly not one with trans fats.

At some point this may cross the line into something that may be unacceptable for us but that line will vary from person to person and there may well be enough people who will accept anything as long as they get free medical care that the protests of a few won;t matter. The question becomes then what you do with the malcontents who won't play along.

If it sounds like I'm painting a deliberately dire picture, keep in mind that this won't affect me much. I don't drink, smoke or do recreational drugs. I could lose a few pounds and exercise more but it wouldn't take boot camp to get me into good shape. I actually enjoy healthy food more than McDonalds toad burgers. This situation has way more ups for me than downs. The part about the government having so much say in our lives sticks in my craw but I'm just not seeing much alternative.

Personally, I'd like to see some experimentation with this. We have the advantage of a federal system, let's use it. Let some states try some kind of Universal system, if only on a limited scale, see how the savings and costs balance out.

Really? I've always read that the poor vote disproportionately Democratic. Your source? (I'm not doubting you, it's just the opposite of what I thought so I'd like to see some evidence).

Well, statistically, republicans have more children than democrats and redstaters have more kids than bluestaters (I live for the day when these two indicators are retired, BTW). Since the south also has a lower per capita income than the north, that may be where Dan was going. As with a lot of things, however, it's never that cut and dried. Poor city dwellers do vote overwhelmingly democratic, but poor rural folk vote mostly republican. Now, there are more poor in the cities than in the country simply because there are more people overall. So, it appears on balance that the poor vote mostly for the dems. But, I think Dan was primarily talking about poor rural voters.

One factor I kind of dread is that there will come a point where the only way to make a Universal system work is to exert a great deal of control over the health choices made by people. We can't allow folks to smoke, drink to excess, consume fatty food, take recreational drugs, drive fast cars...

The part about the government having so much say in our lives sticks in my craw but I'm just not seeing much alternative.

You're describing people who don't go to doctors. As socialized medicine has demonstrated, when people visit doctors with any regularity, over-indulgence dries up substantially. As far as I know, none of the industrialized nations with socialized medicine coerces its citizenry to visit doctors, and none of the presidential candidates' proposals seem to make it a requirement either.

"Now, who fills Caroline Munro's, um, shoes?"

NOT Kate Beckinsale or Keira Knightley. That's becoming too much of a cliché these days. Now that I know who not to see in it... Hmmm. I'm not sure you would need to fill her cu.. shoes... as you might not need to actually remake the film in order to relaunch the series. But if you had to go that route, then I'd say Carla could be perfectly played by Jemima Rooper (with a good voice coach.) She's not the traditional looking female lead,...

http://www.talentedbritishactors.co.uk/jemima.html

... but she's a great character actress and was the only reason to bother watching Hex for a while. She would definitely add something to the role. But I would only cast her because I wouldn't want to extend the character beyond one movie. Kronos shouldn't have too many ties created in any given story. It wouldn't really work for the nature of the character and it would be more fun in general without them.

"Wow. People here have already mentioned it and you still need to ask. You really are clueless."

If facts offend you... I don't know what to say.

"If he doesn't mean to insult, he needs to choose his words with infinitely more care."

There is a difference between not meaning to insult and going out of one's way not to insult.

Bill Myers, for someone who seems to spend a good deal of time on the internet, why don't you know what a troll is? I did not bring up police, but merely responded to a question about them. Ergo I am not a troll. A better case could be made that you are one.

Mike, while as I said in that post a few months ago, something does stand when not refuted, not everything needs to be refuted. In a formal debate it is a time issue, now it is an issue of me having a life outside of answering your idiotic questions, Mike. Some points have to left to the audience to determine, and your nonsense about getting off my computer clearly qualifies as one any rational person can figure out for themselves.

With point two in that last paragraph you are simply lying. I have indeed denied that accountability issue. Even if you think my response is inadequate, that doesn't mean I didn't respond at all. In fact, I am so sure of this that I'll ask anyone else here who has read all my posts if they agree with you on this matter. No one who wants to maintain any sort of intellectual integrity will.

Point three, you are extrapolating wildly, if not once again outright lying. The money issue has nothing to do with quality of work; just that I am opposed to taxation. The part, as I said before, that is important is the power of a community to depose volunteers. They have no official authority and, therefore, as per the Milgram Experiment, opposition to them would be immediately forthcoming in the event of an abuse of power.

Anyway, back to the health care debate (of which I was not the one to derail): Dan, I wonder on what basis you say that free market health care does not work? We don't have free health care now, so you can't use that as a metric to judge it by.

As to the other topic...

I think that the government has its place in our society. Police, rescue and fire are definitely three places for government to have a hand, but I have no problem at all with volunteer organizations working with their local governmental bodies to assist in those functions. Actually, many areas do have volunteer fire and rescue divisions and some areas even have volunteer police units (unarmed and unsworn in most cases) that work with the local police as eyes, ears and the occasional voice.

Likewise, I see no problem with government addressing health care or health insurance so long as it is strictly acting as insurance. I wouldn't want the government taking my options from me or getting into the chair next to my doctor, but I think there is a place in our society for a safety net. If I were to lose my job tomorrow, it would be a huge load off of my mind to know that, should anything happen to Jenn or Ian while I was without income or insurance coverage, my wife and child would be covered and taken care of in an emergency and we wouldn't all be financially screwed for the next five years due to medical costs.

Likewise, there should be no reason that any child in this country should suffer because their parents are either dirt poor or just plain stupid. Why harm a child for the sins of the parent?

Sure, I see the need for checks and balances and there should be oversight done on the local level to insure that abuse is kept to a minimum (you'll never be rid of it entirely) and that people aren't hanging onto the coverage once they've actually gotten themselves back up and running. It should also never be used by the governing bodies to forcibly substitute itself for someone's private insurance or to snoop. It should just be there for emergencies.

My thing is, as I said way back above, that no one should be dieing in the streets or going without proper care in a country that likes to bill itself as the greatest in the world or as blessed by God himself. Absolutely strive to provide for yourself and for your families and do whatever you can to be independent of the government teet. Absolutely help out with any volunteer or charity organizations in your area. Those things matter and those things go a long way toward helping yourself and others. But there's no excuse for a country with the riches of America to tell hard working families that they're screwed and on their own in the event of job loss/cutbacks and a medical emergency.

Ben "I'm Not A Troll, But I play One On The Internet" Lesar: "If facts offend you... I don't know what to say."

Wow.

So...

"Jerry, the reason they are having trouble recruiting is that people hate the police. Wearing the uniform makes you a target. And with good reason. Many police are fascist authoritarians with hard ons for shooting or tazing completely innocent people."

... are facts in your surreal little world? What a sad and miserable place you must live in. Thankfully, for those of us that live in the real world, the facts aren't what you insist they are. Time for your meds now, Ben.

Do you disagree with the first two sentences? I will assume you don't for now and move on. I have already repudiated my use of the term "many," so we can ignore that also. So the question is whether or not the fact that a certain number of police are authoritarians is a good reason for police in general to be hated enough by a not insignificant portion of the populace to be targeted. Remember, "good" is not referring to morality here. Substitute "sufficient" or "explainable*" for best results. Begin.

*You may wish to use police lingo as a synonym. "Probable cause" is a good one. For extra fun come up with your own phrases!

I was at a party once where the private vs. public medical question came up. One of us brought up "medical" expenses like plastic surgery, liposuction, (brace yourselves)abortion, and other "elective" procedures. Where under the public medical system would these fall? My first response was, they wouldn't. By my thinking, even with universal health care, a nose job generally isn't medically necessary except for those pathologically terrified of being mistaken for either Ms. Striesand or Mr. Stewart. One of the ideas we came up with was leave those services private, but they have to contribute a percentage of their fee to the public medical services.

Jerry, your last paragraph really bugs the crap out of me. You're absolutely right, no one SHOULD be dying or living in the streets. Unfortunately, those people generally go by the wayside, whether because they in power just don't like to be faced with unpleasantness(then they shouldn't really wanna be in power...) or because something else has their priority.

Posted by: Ben Lesar

Many militias in the United States are made up of former military, just like Blackwater. Many possible volunteers might be more capable in this regard than police.

Wait a minute - are you proposing allowing the so-called "militia" movement to be the volunteer police?

If so, now i know you're either definitely a troll or bog-ignorant or completely and totally insane.

Or possibly all three.

Posted by: Jerry Chandler

Ben Lesar: "Jerry, how do you define "insulting?" Anything you disagree with? How can something be broad, sweeping and insulting?"

Gee, I don't know... How about the statement that everybody else has already pointed out to you.

"Jerry, the reason they are having trouble recruiting is that people hate the police. Wearing the uniform makes you a target. And with good reason. Many police are fascist authoritarians with hard ons for shooting or tazing completely innocent people."

Wow. People here have already mentioned it and you still need to ask. You really are clueless.

But, see, it's not an insult accos he wasn't not hardly speaking about you personally.

[later post]

"Now, who fills Caroline Munro's, um, shoes?"

NOT Kate Beckinsale or Keira Knightley. That's becoming too much of a cliché these days. Now that I know who not to see in it... Hmmm. I'm not sure you would need to fill her cu.. shoes...

How's about Scarlett Johansen?

Posted by: Ben Lesar

Wow. People here have already mentioned it and you still need to ask. You really are clueless.

If facts offend you... I don't know what to say.

Except, of course, that the "facts" you allege exist mostly inside your fevered mind. Certainly they don't seem to be a part of the Real World that the rest of us live in and experience every day.

(And you might care to identify the author of material you quote so that we can sorta see whose profession you are disingenuously [i'll wait here while you look that up]claiming you didn't insult or whose rational statement you are "refuting" with some more black-helicopter-tinfoil-hat "facts")

If he doesn't mean to insult, he needs to choose his words with infinitely more care.

There is a difference between not meaning to insult and going out of one's way not to insult.

And there is also apparently not caring if you insult, which making an across-the-board derogatory remark about a common profession in the presence of a wide range of people, some of whom may well follow that profession, certainly seems to be.

Or perhaps it's just thoughtlessness.

You certainly don't seem to actually think before you spout one of your canned rants, so it probably is.

Mike, while as I said in that post a few months ago, something does stand when not refuted, not everything needs to be refuted. In a formal debate it is a time issue, now it is an issue of me having a life outside of answering your idiotic questions, Mike. Some points have to left to the audience to determine.

It would appear that the audience has, in fact, determined tham, and your side lost.

With point two in that last paragraph you are simply lying. I have indeed denied that accountability issue. Even if you think my response is inadequate, that doesn't mean I didn't respond at all. In fact, I am so sure of this that I'll ask anyone else here who has read all my posts if they agree with you on this matter. No one who wants to maintain any sort of intellectual integrity will.

You have denied it? Where? Perhaps my eyes just glazed over in self-defense. Would you mind repeating your denial? I'm sure we can all use a good laugh.

Just who is going to hold your "volunteer" police force accountable? I mean, George Bush is theoretically "accountable" for his actions, but no-one seems to be making that stick.

Since "volunteer" includes the concept "self-selected" of necessity, the Bad Guys are likely to outnumber the Good Guys pretty damned quickly. Because, let's face it - being a cop is a pretty damned hard, boring, unpleasant and thankless job. It mostly attracts two types of person - those who genuinely want to serve the public and those who want the power.

And, just as most people who want to be President probably shouldn't be allowed to be (and that includes the least-of-several-evils candidate that i currently think i'll likely vote for), a huge proportion of the people who want to be cops shouldn't be (and, under the current system in *most* places, aren't allowed to or are weeded out), because they are exactly the sort of person who you {mistakenly} describe cops as being.

An example:

Jesse Jewell was, indeed, mistakenly suspected/wrongly accused as the Olympic Park bomber. But there is no doubt that he was a cop wannabe who couldn't pass the psych screening and thus was working as a security guard, because it was the closest he could come to satisfying his fetish. I encountered him a few times, back in the day - he shopped at the same comics shop i did, just up Buford Highway from his apartment - and on the basis of those encounters he was not the person i'd want carrying a gun and "enforcing the law" in any community that i lived in.

But he is exactly the sort that a large proportion of people joining your "volunteer" police would be.

Bye Bye.

Have a nice life.

Elsewhere.

Well, i was responding to some of Ben's later luicrousities, but the computer seems to have eaten my homework, and life's to short to go through actually, like, trying to discern what the hell he's babbling about twice, so...

Ben - if you want to think that your incredibly well-reasoned and persuasively-stated arguments have convinced me when i don't reply any more, you just go right ahead.

It'll be just about as specious as your other beliefs.

Jerry,

Just curious. I take it you're a uniformed officer and not a plainclothes detective. If so, how large is the area you patrol Do you (or any other officer) walk a beat or patrol by bike, or is everyone in a squad car? Do you think it would be beneficial to both the police and the community to get at least some of the officers out of their cars and onto bikes or into comfortable walking shoes (assuming that's not already the case)?

Myself, I think it makes sense to at least have officers on foot or bikes in certain neighborhoods. I think it benefits both the cops and people in the neighborhood if they know each other's names.

For that matter, do officers in your community patrol alone in squad cars or with a partner? I know that some police departments advocate partner patrols, while others favor single officer patrols, on the assumption (if I remember correctly) that an office by his or her self will be more alert than one riding with a partner. Myself, I never quite understood that argument. I can get having one officer per car to cover more of the city, but I'd think that two officers would be twice as alert than one.

Finally, what effect do you think shows like The Shield have on the overall perception of police work? I've seen very little of it, but understand that it depicts both corrupt cops and those trying to take them down. However, the corrupt cops are the protagonists and therefore the nominal "heroes" of the show. Does a show like that cause more people to assume corruption is rampant and/or that cops should have more, um... "leeway" in enforcing the law? Or do you think that people who'd think that way would do so whether or not The Shield existed?

On the other end of the spectrum, take the radio and TV series Dragnet. It didn't make police work look glamorous or "sexy"; but on the other hand it also didn't address the occasional bad apple on the force very often, no doubt giving the impression that the police department (at least the LAPD) was infallible. Does that impression create any problems vis a vis public perception?

In short, what is the good and the bad about the perception of police work in popular culture?

Thanks.

Rick

P.S. Speaking of the Hammer horror (and occasional other genres) films, there's a book out now about the history of the studio. I'm not sure of the exact title, but it's probably something simple like Hammer Films or some such. I saw it at Borders.

Jerry,

Just curious. I take it you're a uniformed officer and not a plainclothes detective. If so, how large is the area you patrol Do you (or any other officer) walk a beat or patrol by bike, or is everyone in a squad car? Do you think it would be beneficial to both the police and the community to get at least some of the officers out of their cars and onto bikes or into comfortable walking shoes (assuming that's not already the case)?

Myself, I think it makes sense to at least have officers on foot or bikes in certain neighborhoods. I think it benefits both the cops and people in the neighborhood if they know each other's names.

For that matter, do officers in your community patrol alone in squad cars or with a partner? I know that some police departments advocate partner patrols, while others favor single officer patrols, on the assumption (if I remember correctly) that an office by his or her self will be more alert than one riding with a partner. Myself, I never quite understood that argument. I can get having one officer per car to cover more of the city, but I'd think that two officers would be twice as alert than one.

Finally, what effect do you think shows like The Shield have on the overall perception of police work? I've seen very little of it, but understand that it depicts both corrupt cops and those trying to take them down. However, the corrupt cops are the protagonists and therefore the nominal "heroes" of the show. Does a show like that cause more people to assume corruption is rampant and/or that cops should have more, um... "leeway" in enforcing the law? Or do you think that people who'd think that way would do so whether or not The Shield existed?

On the other end of the spectrum, take the radio and TV series Dragnet. It didn't make police work look glamorous or "sexy"; but on the other hand it also didn't address the occasional bad apple on the force very often, no doubt giving the impression that the police department (at least the LAPD) was infallible. Does that impression create any problems vis a vis public perception?

In short, what is the good and the bad about the perception of police work in popular culture?

Thanks.

Rick

P.S. Speaking of the Hammer horror (and occasional other genres) films, there's a book out now about the history of the studio. I'm not sure of the exact title, but it's probably something simple like Hammer Films or some such. I saw it at Borders.

"Organized crime wouldn't have a chance to thrive as long as we didn't outlaw things that gave them income. Illegal drugs today, just as prohibition in the twenties, is what fuels crime."

The most heinous organized crime of this century seems to be not drug trafficking but the trafficking in people.

"I was at a party once where the private vs. public medical question came up."

What were you drinking?

"I believe most people would agree that providing emergency services including firefighters and police, civil infrastructure such as roads and bridges, and a national defense are legitimate roles for government to play in society."

The only value in talking with someone like Ben is that he questions such assumptions, which can lead some interesting ideas. However Bill's right, ideology and trollinng are not mutually exclusive. I just wary of overusing the term. Ben uses stereoptypes not because he's ignorant but because he's very knowledgeable in the framework of an ideology that provides him with very clear stereotypes and 'logical' generalizations. But that's certainly no excuse.

I'm certainly not going to interfere in the Mike v. Ben discussion.

The discussion about healthcare here by people who are not ideologically indoctrinated, like Bill, Bill and Jerry shows how complex an issue it is, with no simple answers. Each choice leadsa to it's own problems, and trying to balance between the advantages of each system is not a perfect solution either, although it's probably the only available solution. I think putting it in terms of a safety net is good, but I don't know what the right balance is. I think Jerry is right -- it should be viewed in terms of a safety net.

The problem of welfare states in Europe and Japan seems to be that they've strained the system too much. Ironically, part of the problem is that they don't have enough children to carry the system through to the next generation.

Did anybody watch Deadwood? It depicted a society that in many respects was liberterian.

Bill Mulligan: "One factor I kind of dread is that there will come a point where the only way to make a Universal system work is to exert a great deal of control over the health choices made by people."

HMOs and insurance companies already do that, to a much larger degree than you may realize. People with prior medical conditions are often denied applications for new health insurance. Doctors choices about how to treat patients are limited by what the insurance providers will pay for.

Bill Mulligan: "...and if we don't, tell me who is going to be the one who tells the kid with cancer that his experimental treatment is too expensive."

Right now, that would be the insurance companies. A co-worker of mine died of cancer a few years ago, and even though her family had insurance they were left with crushing amounts of debt.

Bill, I get what you're saying, but I'm forced to wonder why surveys show the majority of Canadians are far more satisfied with their health care system than are their U.S. neighbors. At a party, I met a Canadian psychiatrist who was visiting my area. He told me he was soon going to have to move to another city if he wanted to keep practicing, because the agency that manages the health care system determined there were more than enough psychiatrists where he was and not enough elsewhere. I asked him how he felt about it. He told me it was a sacrifice, yes, but one he was happy to make in the interests of keeping the entire populace covered.

On the flip side, I met a nice Canadian couple who offered to split a cab ride to Laguardia airport. We had a nice, long conversation about a number of things including our respective health care systems. I mentioned that we pay through the nose for insurance, and they responded that Canadians pay through the nose in taxes.

Still, I think a system that covers everyone, and where sane decisions are made about coverage, would drive down costs. Right now, too many people can't afford preventive medicine and as a result end up in the ER, which is far more expensive than a trip to the primary care doctor.

I seem to recall that the Clinton plan was to "outsource" health insurance to a number of regional providers to create "managed competition." No one provider would have a monopoly, and the government would ensure that payers on the federal dime wouldn't get away with telling someone, "No, you don't need a liver transplant because we don't want to spend the money you've been paying us in premiums." Moreover, he government would ensure that anyone who lost their job or couldn't buy insurance through their employer would be covered. The plan was shot down for political and personal reasons (if Hillary said up was up, the Hillary-haters would deny it because, well, their hatred of her overrode all rational thinking). In a sane world, I think it would be worth re-examining.

But this is not a sane world.

Kronos shouldn't have too many ties created in any given story. It wouldn't really work for the nature of the character and it would be more fun in general without them.

Yeah, he should be leaving a trail of dead ex-girlfriends behind him like Little Joe on Bonanza. Romancing loner vampire hunters makes about as much sense, survival wise, as wearing a red shirt and telling Captain Kirk you are getting married next week right before you beam down to The Planet Of Unhappy Lava Men.

How's about Scarlett Johansen?
The answer to that question is almost always yes.

Bill, I think it might be possible to make a Universal health care system work...I just don't have faith in the government to do it. And since once it's put in place it will be as sacred as social security, with even the suggestion of tinkering becoming a third rail of politics we'd better make damn sure we get it right the first time.

If for the first half of our history we were able to go without police, I am sure we can do it again.

For the first half of our history, the most modern computing device was the Jacquard loom. I don't see how you haven't just given me the privilege to tell you to get off your computer.

Mike, while as I said in that post a few months ago, something does stand when not refuted, not everything needs to be refuted. In a formal debate it is a time issue, now it is an issue of me having a life outside of answering your idiotic questions, Mike. Some points have to left to the audience to determine, and your nonsense about getting off my computer clearly qualifies as one any rational person can figure out for themselves.

It's funny how your selective application of a principle isn't a case of your hypocrisy but someone else's idiocy. Not a laughing with you funny, but a laughing at you funny.

Volunteer law enforcement would be authorized by consent. If someone abuses their authority that consent is taken away. Therefore they have no real power and are less likely to try to abuse it. Power corrupts.

Other than the absence of pay, how is what you say different than what we have now?

Is that your point, that receiving money reduces the quality of one's work? Doesn't that simply mean you are unqualified for anything you accept compensation for?...

Ben, you haven't denied you've given me the privilege to get off your computer, you haven't denied that dissolving police as a public service would remove accountability from peace-keeping, and you haven't given anyone anything else to imagine other than that you are saying that receiving a wage reduces the quality of one's work, from which it may be reasonably inferred that you are unqualified for any paid labor.

With point two in that last paragraph you are simply lying. I have indeed denied that accountability issue. Even if you think my response is inadequate, that doesn't mean I didn't respond at all. In fact, I am so sure of this that I'll ask anyone else here who has read all my posts if they agree with you on this matter. No one who wants to maintain any sort of intellectual integrity will.

You are simply wrong. Intent is required to qualify lying. If you had access to a healthy intuition, or if you weren't desperate to attribute to me such an intent, you would have realized it's plausible I simply wrote casually, and although you failed to cite anything demonstrating how I was wrong, I have no reservation against rephrasing to accommodate you.

Your denial that dissolving police as a public service would remove accountability from peace-keeping is based only on the insistence of your own damaged word.

Point three, you are extrapolating wildly, if not once again outright lying.... The part, as I said before, that is important is the power of a community to depose volunteers. They have no official authority and, therefore, as per the Milgram Experiment, opposition to them would be immediately forthcoming in the event of an abuse of power.

When you don't say what's missing now that will be present with an unpaid police force, the absence of pay is literally the only plausible inference as to what your problem with the current system is. It ain't Rocket Surgery, Ben.

...just that I am opposed to taxation.

You seem to be under the impression that the privileged shouldn't be required to participate in maintaining the infrastructure that nurtures their accumulation of privilege and wealth in anything resembling a proportion in which they benefit from it. You're gonna have to do better than saying you want to enable a level of privilege carried on the backs of the lower and middle classes.

You might be attributing a malevolent influence on dollars collected in such a fashion. To that I can only respond: it's the same money handed over by the tax payer in the first place. And so we may return to the reasonable inference you are unqualified for any paid labor.

"Just curious. I take it you're a uniformed officer and not a plainclothes detective. If so, how large is the area you patrol Do you (or any other officer) walk a beat or patrol by bike, or is everyone in a squad car?"

A relatively small area of the city, but one that's densely packed due to high rise buildings, a public library, tourist attractions, a major hospital, two or three (one is always closing while another is always opening) homeless shelters, several major bus stops, one of the 24/48 hour holding facilities (drunk tank) and magistrates offices, vital state office buildings/centers, the Capitol building itself, City Hall and lots of politicians & VIPs. We patrol by foot, bike and car as well as acting as security or VIP protection where needed.

"Do you think it would be beneficial to both the police and the community to get at least some of the officers out of their cars and onto bikes or into comfortable walking shoes (assuming that's not already the case)?"

I think every agency should do that in some way or another. Community Policing is an extremely valuable tool that has shown its worth and effectiveness countless times now. Plus, it's a lot harder to know what's going on around you while doing 35 to 45 through an area with the windows rolled up and the A/C and radio on.

"For that matter, do officers in your community patrol alone in squad cars or with a partner? I know that some police departments advocate partner patrols, while others favor single officer patrols, on the assumption (if I remember correctly) that an office by his or her self will be more alert than one riding with a partner. Myself, I never quite understood that argument. I can get having one officer per car to cover more of the city, but I'd think that two officers would be twice as alert than one."

For most the agencies around here, it depends on how well staffed you are. Some agencies like the two man unit. Some are so short right now that you have one officer or deputy covering 20 to 30 square miles on their own with a back-up unit 30 minutes away if things go wrong. We usually patrol solo, but then we can reach each other in five minutes or less.

The idea of one officer being more alert then two is based on the fact that two people that start getting in a really animated discussion about something that they both enjoy may become more focused on the discussion then looking around them and actually seeing their surroundings. It happens. I think that one officer can become just as oblivious due to boredom or thousand yard stare at times, so it evens out in my mind.

"Finally, what effect do you think shows like The Shield have on the overall perception of police work? I've seen very little of it, but understand that it depicts both corrupt cops and those trying to take them down. However, the corrupt cops are the protagonists and therefore the nominal "heroes" of the show. Does a show like that cause more people to assume corruption is rampant and/or that cops should have more, um... "leeway" in enforcing the law? Or do you think that people who'd think that way would do so whether or not The Shield existed?
On the other end of the spectrum, take the radio and TV series Dragnet. It didn't make police work look glamorous or "sexy"; but on the other hand it also didn't address the occasional bad apple on the force very often, no doubt giving the impression that the police department (at least the LAPD) was infallible. Does that impression create any problems vis a vis public perception?

In short, what is the good and the bad about the perception of police work in popular culture?"

Actually Dragnet, at least in the radio form, addressed crooked cops at least once. I wasn't as big on the TV show so I can't remember if it did or not.

The Shield, CSI, Hill Street Blues, The Streets of San Francisco, Dragnet, etc have all had as much effect as anybody lets it have on them. There's a chunk of the general population that, if they see it in a movie or TV show, fiction trumps reality. You get used to it. Either people will correct their mistaken beliefs when confronted with reality or they won't. The only place it really seems to be having a noticeable effect is in the courts. I'm sure you've seen the news reports before about "The CSI Effect" and how it clouds juries views about real forensic testimony. But on the job? You tend to laugh it off.

But, addressing your last question in the overall question, yeah, it can create problems, but it mostly doesn't. People will react one way or another based more on their upbringing then on their viewing habits. But it does effect the courts and it does effect staffing.

In the area of staffing, dovetailing nicely with something Mike Weber posted about the Jewel case, you get lots of gung ho idiots that apply for the job because they know zip all about the job, but they think that (fill in the blank) is a cool character on TV. Well, if the character isn't nuts, that's not always bad. It's a bit like the NASA workers who all started out as Trek fans. Well, if the character they thing is cool and want to emulate is from The Shield, then we really like to weed them out before they even get to the "your hired" part of the process.

If anything is unclear or didn't address what you wanted to know, let me know. I'm literally typing this as fast as I can think it up as I have some family stuff to do this evening and I really want to get my workout in before I lose the chance to do so.

Sean: "I was at a party once where the private vs. public medical question came up."

Micha: "What were you drinking?"

It wasn't the drinks, Micha. The problem was that they let Sean cook the food.

"Here you go guys. Haggis! and from my family's secret recipe no less"

I'd heard that the rescue squad was less then amused.

Bill Mulligan: "Yeah, he should be leaving a trail of dead ex-girlfriends behind him like Little Joe on Bonanza."

No, he shouldn't. On the other side of that argument, he shouldn't have to have a romantic lead in every story either. It's become so annoyingly formulaic in Hollywood these days that you have to have a lead male and a lead female who will end up doing each by the third act that it sometimes gets both clumsily portrayed and irritatingly distracting to the story's pacing. You don't have to have that storyline in every film. It gets worth when they have sequels films where the female leads don't always come back and they seem to feel that they have to redo the entire "one true love of the hero's life" plot for every film until the franchise dies. Kronos could easily go a story or two on pure swashbuckling adventure and vampire slaying (with maybe a few other creature sparingly thrown into the mix) without that subplot just fine.

"Community Policing is an extremely valuable tool that has shown its worth and effectiveness countless times now."

I think that's the kernel of truth in what Ben said -- you probably want the police to be perceived as part of the community and accountable to it, instead of some external force, as much as you can in an urban society.

Speaking of TV police shows, Jerry, what do you think of the Wire?

"On the flip side, I met a nice Canadian couple who offered to split a cab ride to Laguardia airport. We had a nice, long conversation about a number of things including our respective health care systems. I mentioned that we pay through the nose for insurance, and they responded that Canadians pay through the nose in taxes."

There is a fundemental difference in the internal logic between a system based on taxation and the one based on a transaction with an insurance company. In the first case indivuals members of society are obligated to give money to the society so that every member of society will have adequate medical care. In the second the image is of individuals taking care of themselves by paying to a private insurance company, but if they lack the money they depend on the voluntary charity of others. This difference affects the attitudes of people -- especially ideologically motivated people -- for or against each system. Although nowadays people are less interested in ideological arguments and more about utility. Does the average Canadian family pay more in taxes for their health carethan an American family for insurance, and what kind of service do they get? How does each method affect society?

"Community Policing is an extremely valuable tool that has shown its worth and effectiveness countless times now."

I think that's the kernel of truth in what Ben said -- you probably want the police to be perceived as part of the community and accountable to it, instead of some external force, as much as you can in an urban society.

Speaking of TV police shows, Jerry, what do you think of the Wire?

"On the flip side, I met a nice Canadian couple who offered to split a cab ride to Laguardia airport. We had a nice, long conversation about a number of things including our respective health care systems. I mentioned that we pay through the nose for insurance, and they responded that Canadians pay through the nose in taxes."

There is a fundemental difference in the internal logic between a system based on taxation and the one based on a transaction with an insurance company. In the first case indivuals members of society are obligated to give money to the society so that every member of society will have adequate medical care. In the second the image is of individuals taking care of themselves by paying to a private insurance company, but if they lack the money they depend on the voluntary charity of others. This difference affects the attitudes of people -- especially ideologically motivated people -- for or against each system. Although nowadays people are less interested in ideological arguments and more about utility. Does the average Canadian family pay more in taxes for their health carethan an American family for insurance, and what kind of service do they get? How does each method affect society?

Jerry,

Thanks for your kinsights into community policework. It was very interesting to read. I'm going to ask a question that I shocked the Bill Mulligan hasn't. If he has asked this at some time, sorry:

What specific plans has your department made to fight off an attack of zombies?

Would zombies even be a law enforcement issue? It isn't like they're illegal or anything. I'm thinking the halting the destruction from a zombie outbreak would be the province of the state or national guards.

"I think that's the kernel of truth in what Ben said"

Not really.

"Speaking of TV police shows, Jerry, what do you think of the Wire?"

I don't know. I work 4 to Mid, so I really only see programs that I can DVR and I don't add much to that unless the ads really hook me. Plus, I'm not a "normal" cop in that sense. I like COPs and I like some of the classics like Barney Miller and Hill Street, but I'm not really into watching every cop drama out there. But I made damned sure to catch Hot Fuzz.

"Thanks for your kinsights into community policework."

That wasn't insight. That was the header on an entire chapter. When I have more then five minutes, unlike now, I'll go into detail about it and my first answer to Micha about Ben's non-kernel of truth.

"What specific plans has your department made to fight off an attack of zombies?"

Duh!!!! They hired me.

"Would zombies even be a law enforcement issue?"

Murder. Makes it a law enforcement issue.

What specific plans has your department made to fight off an attack of zombies?

I think it's clear that within a very short time after the zombie outbreak we would rapidly lose all medical, police, and firefighter resources. in about that order. In fact, I'd guess that after a few hours the only cops you'll see will be the ones shambling toward you with arms outstretched and crooked grins. The thin blue-skinned line.

That's one of the advantages the Zeds have--without any thought on their part they quickly take out some of our most important social elements. I note that lawyers and politicians will be largely spared the initial culling. There's a lesson there somewhere.

Jerry Chandler is a known Zombie sympathizer. And Bill Mulligan's movies? Cinema verite.

That said, I have a secret weapon against which the zombies are powerless: squirrels. The zombies can't catch 'em. And like the Ewoks proved, enough little furry creatures can bring down an Empire... or a mass of zombies.

[David] What specific plans has your department made to fight off an attack of zombies?

Would zombies even be a law enforcement issue?

[Jerry] Murder. Makes it a law enforcement issue.

Murder would be the justification for arresting zombies, whom I believe you have the slack to simply dispose of at your discretion. However, I wouldn't think having the slack to dispose of any immediate threats actually gives you jurisdiction.

In other words, I don't think it's a good idea to make the police any more responsible for preparing against the zombie outbreak than for making sure bridges don't collapse. The sense of security will be justified unevenly, if at all.

"I've always read that the poor vote disproportionately Democratic. Your source?" ---My source is simple election results from my region. Where I live (and surrounding areas) are overwhelmingly poor, some of the poorest rural areas in the country. And...they have been voting Republican for many years. "Don't take my guns! Stop abortion!" These are their voting issues. I tell them to be careful what they vote for (GOP), because they just might get it (end to social safety net). ----There's a good book that discusses this peculiar phenomenon called "What's The Matter With Kansas." It applies to a lot of places in the U.S.

""Dan, I wonder on what basis you say that free market health care does not work? We don't have free health care now, so you can't use that as a metric to judge it by.""

I say it doesn't work because it does not provide care for everybody. Health care isn't digital cable, it's not an optional good. It's on the level of food, education, and access to courts. If people are left out (wholly or partly) then the system is failing those people.

The U.S. health care industry is run like any entertainment industry (money, not the public good, is the primary concern). This helps maximize their profits, but it is counterproductive to society's needs. For health care to be a part of our basic values (instead of just another commodity), we MUST intervene. We can either take control of the industry, or fill in the gaps with public funds.

I argue that we already have the right to intervene and control the industry (to some degree). Public tax dollars already pay for much of the R&D for these companies (grants, tax cuts). That's OUR money they get to play with. Ergo, we have a RIGHT to access to those new technologies and discoveries.

It's abhorrent we pay for Big Pharma to develop new medicines, only to see the Gov't give them exclusive ownership so that they can charge US through the nose to get it. WE paid for it ALREADY. So it should either be reasonably priced (by regulation) or immediately become public domain so that competition can bring the price down. I say that the principle of patents does not apply in these cases. They shouldn't be treated as singular creators if the rest of us are (partly) footing the bill.

With that in mind, the free market has again failed us. We keep cutting corporate taxes so that they'll have the money to invest in these new medicines/technologies on their own and we STILL have to subsidize development with public money.

Moreover, Big Pharma has abandoned the "free" market already. They use the power of the federal gov't to hold us all hostage to their outrageous pricing. They abhor competition, and disallow us--using purchased federal officials- from buying products at the lowest possible price (such as from Canada).

As for "free" health care, that doesn't exist anywhere. Other countries use their tax system to provide for themselves health care in a similar fashion to how we provide ourselves roads and schools. Because of my morals and values, I believe essential (non-elective) health care would be better provided through a similar system. It would also liberate our employers from an albatross they are obviously not well equipped to deal with.

From my current vantage point, it seems that socialized health care would not only extend coverage and reduce stress, but would be a "jobs creation" program. Companies could use the freed up money to expand, and perhaps keep more jobs here in the U.S.

Micha talking about the differences between taxation-based medical versus private insurance-based reminds me of my insurance job. Now, while insurance companies can be invaluable when you need them, no matter what their PR departments tell you, they're in business to make money. That's it. No big secret. They want to make money off people and have as few claims as possible. Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious, but in the whole debate about it all, that fact is never brought up.

It wasn't the drinks, Micha. The problem was that they let Sean cook the food.

"Here you go guys. Haggis! and from my family's secret recipe no less"

I'd heard that the rescue squad was less then amused.

In my defense, I thought the salsa and the Frank's Hot Sauce would've killed those things. Who knew they'd like 'em? Micha, seriously, we've been talking a long time. Do you really wanna see me with booze in me? Not a pretty picture, man!

"Duh!!! They hired me."
So, their plan is to, what? Have you go down and quote Hammer films and other odd minutiae at them until they become so bored they're happy to return to the grave?

Posted by: Jerry Chandler

"Speaking of TV police shows, Jerry, what do you think of the Wire?"I don't know. I work 4 to Mid, so I really only see programs that I can DVR and I don't add much to that unless the ads really hook me.

Dennis Smith, publisher of Firehouse magazine, was a working firefighter back in the 60s, and continued on the job for some years after he published his bestselling Report from Engine Co. 82 about his experiences as a firefighter in the busiest house ion the country.

TV Guide asked him to review Emergency, which was new that season.

His review consisted of several variations on "I sat down to watch it. The firefighters were eating lunch/playing basketball out back/doing maintenance and the alarm went off and they had to drop what they were doing and head for the scene of the action. I was waiting to see how realistic the call was and then the alarm went off and I had to stop watching and get on the truck and I didn't see the rest..."

He concluded "Well, it's realistic in at least one way."

Jerry, you mention Hill Street - it was al;most canceled after its first season; the ratings were horrid. But NBC had faith (perhaps recalling Star Trek) and renewed it for half a season with an option.

And then they carpet-bombed prime time for a couple weeks before it returned with promos showing real cops saying in their own words how much they loved it...

BTW - the Chicago precinct house used for exteriors of the Hill was widely known back in the Old Days as the most currupt precinct in the country. at one time the Captain handed the local bagmen hsi official personnel list because cops from all over the city were dropping in on pad day and standing around with their hands out.

My Dad was born in Berwyn (on the other side of Cicero, which was Capone's base of operations, from Chicago), and his grandfather was a saloon keeper in Cicero. He knew the kids of both cops and mobsters; one of his classmates came to school in an armoured Cadillac and had a bodyguard who followed him from class to class.

The RObert Stack Untouchables was one of his favourite teevee comedy programs.

Dan I would be very careful before mucking around with the drug companies. The stuff they have been pumping out has made life incredibly better these last few decades. We are on the cusp of what could be the greatest breakthroughs in medicine ever--ever! Maybe now's not the time to be breaking something that has been working pretty well.

Are the drugs expensive? yeah. So's being sick, plus...you're sick.

If it becomes less profitable to develop drugs, the people who do these things will have many other more profitable ventures to switch to. (there's always that Pentagon Death Gel Project! Or the top secret Gillette 8 track razer with the foaming aloe strip and mp3 player in the handle. And 8 blades, of course.).

Would this be the wisest move on our part?

Ok, I'm back. Please keep the applause to a minimum.

Micha: "I think that's the kernel of truth in what Ben said"

Not really. I am for actual police organizations that work with community groups in order to deal with things like crime prevention, watching out for gang activity moving into the area and assisting in the overall well being of a community. I also feel that, if a group is on patrol and sees something really bad going down, these groups should call the police. I don't want to see the actual police departments replaced with volunteers who got their police training from TV Land reruns of S.W.A.T.

Ben has repeatedly stated that he would like to see police departments replaced entirely with his antiquated volunteer system. What he doesn't know, beyond the obvious things, is just how useless that would be on so many levels. He also doesn't realize the dangers involved with even minor events.

Ben, as a private citizen, and his merry band of volunteers have absolutely no right whatsoever to know my personal, private information or things like my medical history. He has no right whatsoever to know if I have ever had a ticket, let alone been arrested. That being the case, how does he know who I am?

Yeah, I could be nice and show him my driver's license, but that doesn't really tell him anything. How does he know it's not fake? How does he know it's really my license? How does he know, after I've been charmingly nice and explained that I just got lost while out on a stroll, that I'm not wanted for multiple murders committed the day before, or earlier that day, one city or one state away?

He doesn't. He also has no good way of finding these things out. I can. Professional officers can. And we can only because of the training we went through and the long legal classes. And if we do anything stupid with that power, we face getting fired, getting fined and maybe even getting jail time.

This all has to do with the VCIN/NCIC system. It allows agencies to share information from county to county, city to city and state to state. It also hooks into DMV and a number of other informational sources. If the general public really knew just how much can already be looked up through VCIN/NCIC (Oh, VCIN is just Virginia. That's the V in it. Other states have their own set up. NCIC is national.) they would be queasy as it is. But there is no way that any sane person is going to want to let a bunch of part time weekend warriors have that kind of power.

Oh, and I can be warned when I need to use universal protection. That means that our systems or records popped out information on a subject that warns us of his or her TB, AIDS, etc.

There's also the legal end of it. Do you really have any clue how many laws we had to learn in academy and, even worse, how many legal updates, refreshers and recerts I've had to go through just in the last five years? Do people like Ben even have the first clue what the laws in their area really are? You bust, harass or detain somebody for something that you "know" is illegal rather then something that actually is... Have fun with the lawsuits, fines and jail time, Ben.

No, there is so much more to what we do in order to become a police officer then just being able to shoot straight and look pretty in our uniform. People like Ben have no idea about that or what they're talking about. That's just another reason why his idea and mine are nothing alike.

David Hunt: "Thanks for your kinsights into community policework. It was very interesting to read."

That was nothing. You aught to talk to your local police department about community policing. Yeah, it includes stuff like working with neighborhood watch groups and getting out of your car more often to walk a neighborhood, but there's so much more. Officers go to schools to talk to students about issues in the community or drugs. Officers attend local or state fairs or events to set up a booth and to talk to the community in a casual setting about problems, solutions or just general information. It involves getting to know the community and the people in it as well as you can to both build a trust with them and to be able to know when something is wrong just by the smallest of irregularities. It also involves learning the cultural rules of everybody in your community in order to better understand them and to avoid accidentally offending them.

I mean, there are entire books on the subject. If I really wanted to get into detail on every aspect of it, I would double the size of this thread in one post.

Bill Mulligan: "I think it's clear that within a very short time after the zombie outbreak we would rapidly lose all medical, police, and firefighter resources."

Only because the idiots don't know what they're doing. Yeah, we would eventually have to fall back, but the C-1 plan gets me, my guys and others out of the city, kills butt loads of zombies and saves civilians. So there.

Bill Myers: "Jerry Chandler is a known Zombie sympathizer."

Only if his name is Rob. And squirrels!?!? Yeah. Haven'y you ever bothered to watch the really bad films from Italian and Spanish movie houses? The animals will become infected to. God, what we had to go through with those damned birds...

Dan:"*"

Uhmmmm... Yeah. Moving on.

Mike Weber,

Yeah, my wife went to school with some kids in NJ who had parents in the mob. They all thought that stuff like that was funny too. Jenn still does.

dan: "Public tax dollars already pay for much of the R&D for these companies (grants, tax cuts)."

False. According to the April 2001 edition of Reason Magazine, 90 percent of all drug development is privately funded. Most government grants go to universities for the purpose of conducting "pure research" that rarely leads to usable drugs. Pharma companies take a huge risk by taking that nascent research and attempting to turn it into a viable product. If they can't own the patent for a time, there's no incentive for them to take that huge financial risk.

(And patents are time-limited, by the way. Otherwise there would be no generic drugs.)

Dan: "It's abhorrent we pay for Big Pharma to develop new medicines, only to see the Gov't give them exclusive ownership so that they can charge US through the nose to get it."

Also false. According to the April 2001 edition of Reason Magazine, pharma companies have to write off their R&D expenses differently than other companies under GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Practices). As a result, their profits look inflated. If you adjust for the difference in accounting standards, pharma companies on average turn profits about twice as high as most other industries. That still sounds like a lot, until you factor in the huge risk drug companies take when trying to develop new drugs. The overwhelming majority of drugs in the "pipeline" turn out not to be viable -- after years of research and millions of dollars spent. Drug companies couldn't afford to take those kinds of losses without cash reserves that exceed what companies in most other industries need.

Micha: "I think that's the kernel of truth in what Ben said..."

Yeah, I have to agree with Jerry. You're trying to hard to find the good in what Ben is saying. Usually that's an admirable trait, but sometimes nonsense is just that: nonsense.

My reasoning mirrors Jerry, so I won't belabor the point. And I have no interest in talking any further about Ben. The discussion about health care, and separating what's real versus what's merely perceived, is infinitely more fascinating to me.

Posted by: Bill Myers

(And patents are time-limited, by the way. Otherwise there would be no generic drugs.)

Yup. Year before last, our doctor prescribed a druig for me that the insurance wouldn't cover at any level. (Lamisil, an anti-fungal that may be the only thing that can clear up a condition that nothing else has managed to knock out - including [skip the italics if you're squeamish] the surgical removal of my toenails and cleaning/disinfection of the nail beds.)

It cost $13/dose - needed daily for at least six months (assuming my liver can stand the gaff). About $2400 for the minimum course of treatment.

June of this year, the patent expired.

Last month, WalMart began selling the generic for $4. (And i think that's for a month's supply.)

Mike Weber: "... including [skip the italics if you're squeamish] the surgical removal of my toenails and cleaning/disinfection of the nail beds.)"

Eeeewwww. Ok. I'll see if your suggestion works.

"including [skip the italics if you're squeamish] the surgical removal of my toenails and cleaning/disinfection of the nail beds.)"

Nope. Reading it that way still made me flinch.

"Public tax dollars already pay for much of the R&D for these companies (grants, tax cuts)."

According to the April 2001 edition of Reason Magazine, 90 percent of all drug development is privately funded. Most government grants go to universities for the purpose of conducting "pure research" that rarely leads to usable drugs. Pharma companies take a huge risk by taking that nascent research and attempting to turn it into a viable product.

Let's not mix basic and applied research....both are needed and both are hard (in fact, you can't do the applied without doing the basic). Mixing the two often leads to the underfunding of the basic part.

I said: "On the other end of the spectrum, take the radio and TV series Dragnet. It didn't make police work look glamorous or "sexy"; but on the other hand it also didn't address the occasional bad apple on the force very often, no doubt giving the impression that the police department (at least the LAPD) was infallible."

Jerry said: "Actually Dragnet, at least in the radio form, addressed crooked cops at least once. I wasn't as big on the TV show so I can't remember if it did or not."

I think I own that episode (if not, I've at least heard it); and I also recall that one episode of the later Dragnet TV series (i.e. Dragnet 1967, not the earlier black and white TV series from the 1950s, had an episode that dealt with a crooked rookie cop (or one heading in that direction). He was played by a young Kent McCord. Later officer Jim Reed in Adam-12..

While the character of Jim Reed appears in episodes of Dragnet according to IMDb (Jack Webb created Adam 12 so that's no surprise), I assume his crooked rookie cop was a different character. It's been years since I've seen Adam 12, but I never got the impression that Reed was someone who'd been swayed by the Dark Side for a time.

Anyway, as I said in my initial post, Dragnet didn't address the bad apples on the police force very often. My understanding is that the LAPD of the 1950s deserved some criticism, but Jack Webb chose not to go that route. In some ways that's curious, because I'm sure he could have criticized certain things while putting them in the context that police officers-- as a whole-- are not like that and that keeping such people on the force only hurts the department. Or something like that.

In fact, I believe in the aforementioned TV episode Joe Friday tells the crooked (or was thinking of going crooked or maybe tried to cut some corners and got caught) cop that behavior like his brings everyone else down by implication.

Or maybe he gave that speech on the radio show. Or both. Some of the early TV shows were taken directly from the radio scripts.

And for the record, while Jack Webb himself respected the police, not all his characters did. His San Francisco waterfront troubleshooter Pat Novak, in the radio show Pat Novak for Hire, often had little use for cops; and his PI Jeff Regan of Jeff Regan, Investigator also may have had similar feelings. I'd have to review my copies of those episodes to be sure.

I'm fairly certain his Kansas City Jazz musician character of Pete Kelly in the radio show Pete Kelly's Blues took a more or less neutral stance.

One other question about community policing. What would be your personal preference: Walking a beat or bicycling it? I'd assume the bike patrol would cover a larger area, since you could travel faster. On the other hand, I'd also assume you'd be biking at a relatively slow speed, so you could note what's going on and be able to stop more or less on a dime. So maybe it wouldn't be that much larger.

By the way, what is your rank? Patrolman? Sergeant? Lieutenant? Captain? Detective? Detective Sergeant? Deputy Chief? Chief? Commissioner? Kneel Before Zod?

Thanks,

Rick

"Posted by: Jerry Chandler at October 10, 2007 11:04 PM

Micha: "I think that's the kernel of truth in what Ben said"

Jerry: Not really.

Ben has repeatedly stated that he would like to see police departments replaced entirely with his antiquated volunteer system. What he doesn't know, beyond the obvious things, is just how useless that would be on so many levels. He also doesn't realize the dangers involved with even minor events."

This was not what I meant when I said that Ben was right. I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear.

Ben presents a problem: police officers are distrusted. There is a kernel of truth in that in some places though not to the degree or for the reasons he presents. Being inundated in his own ideology Ben assumes that everybody looks at the police through the ideological specticals he does. But still, I assume that mistrust by the community can be a problem for police.

Ben's solution, dismantle the police and let volunteers police the community.

Some police forces present a different solution, which is the one you presented, namely community policing.

And that's what I meant when I said that extreme ideologies ask the right questions but offer thte wrong (simplistic) answers.

-------
I should also add that Bill Myers idea to use squirrels to fight zombies is absurd. You can't send amatour squirrels to fight zombies without proper screening and training. That would be silly. So, Bill Myers will recruit the squirrels. As per Ben'sd suggestion, we wil recruit them from the local community. And Jerry wil have to find the time in between real police work and taking care of a newborn to train the squirrels. Bill Mulligan will oversee the whole process, while Sean will be responsible for the special highlander unit. Of course you could send them to train with the Israeli special rodent commando unit, but that would mean to much taxation, and we have to keep this realistic. My solution, we should medicate them, which brings us to the question: should squirrels receive medicaid?

Year before last, our doctor prescribed a druig for me that the insurance wouldn't cover at any level. (Lamisil, an anti-fungal that may be the only thing that can clear up a condition that nothing else has managed to knock out - including [skip the italics if you're squeamish] the surgical removal of my toenails and cleaning/disinfection of the nail beds.)

What's the status of your phantom toenail pain?

It cost $13/dose - needed daily for at least six months (assuming my liver can stand the gaff). About $2400 for the minimum course of treatment.

June of this year, the patent expired.

Last month, WalMart began selling the generic for $4. (And i think that's for a month's supply.)

If you're lucky, maybe toenail fungus will undergo a mutation that renders the Lamisil obsolete. That way, no one will be able to exploit the 99% drop in the price your timing forced you to pay anymore.

"Yup. Year before last, our doctor prescribed a druig for me that the insurance wouldn't cover at any level. (Lamisil, an anti-fungal that may be the only thing that can clear up a condition that nothing else has managed to knock out - including [skip the italics if you're squeamish] the surgical removal of my toenails and cleaning/disinfection of the nail beds.)"

My doctor prescribed that for me once.

It lit up my body like a Christmas tree. Within 24 hours of taking it I was covered with a head-to-toe rash, resulting in a week of itching agony.

PAD

Thinking about the whole expensive drugs thing, and the research that goes into it, I can see where it'd be an expensive prospect. I used to do research for a company that was just trying to find the owners of assets that had gotten lost, and it'd take forever sometimes. I can only IMAGINE how some of those drug researchers feel. Putting everything they have into something only to have it be a dead end. I don't know that a lot of people understand that part of it.
June of this year, the patent expired.

I read that quick, and also not quite awake yet, and thought the patient expired, and was ready to be very sad. Then I realized that you were talking about yourself, Mike, and realized either I'd misread it or our ubiquitous living-challenged topics of discussion had suddenly gained internet access.

And don't worry. My Highland Squirrels won't have their pipes. The will, however, have the Haggis of Havoc! Tremble in fear before my disgusting food!

My doctor prescribed that for me once.

It lit up my body like a Christmas tree. Within 24 hours of taking it I was covered with a head-to-toe rash, resulting in a week of itching agony.

At least you can't say it didn't take your mind off your toenail infection.

Rick,

Patrolman (with specialties) at present, bikes all the way and we really have to compare notes on good audio productions and whwere to find good ones for good prices some time.

Micha,

Ok, I can see where you were coming from with that point. Still not 100% with you, but close.

Sean,

Haggis of Havoc? Don't make us call the CDC on you again.

My God...

Anybody else got the cable news channels on right now? On the heels of yesterday's shooting, they've just busted some other 14 year old who was planning a Columbine style spree of his own. The thing that's mind blowing though, is what they're showing right now on MSNBC. They're showing the weapons cache that they recovered from this, again, 14 year old boy. It looks like half a F'n gun store.

I mean... WTF!

This kid has more damned guns, swords and exotic bladed weapons then most the people I know.

Thank God his schoolmate (if early reports are correct) turned this kid in when he tried to recruit him. If he had actually gone on this attack he was planning, just about anything he had would have created pure carnage before he was stopped.

Jerry,

Glad to compare notes on old-time radio, and where to get good quality tapes, CDs, MP3s whatever. Let me know your E-Mail address, please. Thanks.

Rick

This is an obvious wake-up call to allow students to pack heat in middle school.

Ok, posted too fast. They just had someone on CNN from the police department to clear up some early press report misconceptions. Seems that there were only two real guns in that haul while the rest were BB guns that looked like assault weapons that would have been used more for intimidation. Still, the guns he did have combined with the bladed weapons would have done some damage and the officer did point out that he had made homemade grenades out of plastic grenades, BB's and black powder. That's still enough to kill. Not as bad as it was being reported thirty minutes ago, but still really messed up.

Posted by: Mike

What's the status of your phantom toenail pain?

They growded back.

(And i'd like to apologise for my post that came out in all boldface - that's the only post i've made recently that i didn't preview to make sure something like that didn't happen...)

Are they supposed to be able to grow back? I think you might be some kind of human-shark throwback.