Pangloss

Iran was attacked by Iraq in that war, and the motivations of their soldiers was therefore different from what it would be in a war of aggression. A number of legitimate questions have been raised about the efficacy and accuracy of Iran's claims about suicide squads. At the moment it appears to really be more of a political weapon than a tactical one (but, I readily admit, appearances can be deceiving). You're also missing the point that they would be invading the only other shi'a-controlled state in the entire world. Wars of aggression usually require a popular mandate. The average Iranian is not interested in a "new caliphate" -- that is a motivation mainly for the ruling elite. But when it comes to attacking fellow shi'a, I think they would very much have an opinion about that. You do raise a valid question, IMO, about how gutsy the international community would be about stopping a war of aggression by an Arab/Muslim nation in possession of the atomic bomb. I think that's an interesting topic for speculation, even if it doesn't apply to Iran.

Please feel free to expand on why you guys like Obama. His speaking ability is certainly clear and coherent, but I'm curious what it is that people find attractive about him in a political sense. So far as I can see, the main appeal seems to be that he's a black Democrat without significant prior baggage. A manifestation of the bright and happy side of political correctness, where everyone can generally agree.

No. And isn't that a rather obvious straw man? We don't want to throw out the current program because of individual cases, we want to throw it out because it's not what's best for the general public (i.e. "everyone"). The best healthcare system in the world will have people who fell through the cracks. I'm not going to make a decision on that basis, and I'm not going to allow that sort of thing to shape the debate here. Hint, hint.

Why?

I understand your concern, but it simply isn't realistic. The world won't sit still for Iran invading Iraq under any circumstances, and you're ignoring such factors as Europe's efforts to change Iran's policies and overinflating the value of (not to mention the existence of) Iran's so-called suicide brigades. And as I said above, they simply have no reason to do so. Iraq doesn't give them anything they need, it gives them a whole lot of trouble they don't need, and they win without invading, becoming the power brokers for something like half the oil supply of the Middle East. And it gets even better when you consider the power shift in OPEC -- Iraq was historically part of the Saudi pricing alliance. Now the balance of power will shift to Iran-Venezuela and the alliance that favors higher prices. Why in the God's green acres would they want to shoot themselves in the foot like that?

Funniest reply of the month, right there....

Unnecessary. The moment the US pulls out, Iran has already won -- the Second Shi'a State has been created. Why incur the wrath of the outside world by actually invading, which would surely prompt a response similar to that of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait?

Minnesota is the redneck capital? The land of Garrison "my momma told me never to vote Republican" Keillor and Al "Bush lied kids died" Franken? Ooookaaayy.....

Amusing, gcol, but off-subject.

I heard his dress shirts don't need collar stiffeners. Somebody get a rope!

Nobody is buying PS3s. Haven't you all heard? The economy is in the crapper, the world is just about out of oil, government corruption is rampant, nobody has any healthcare except the "privileged elite", creation is being taught over evolution, the entire next generation is dying in Iraq, and the government was behind 9/11. Sony won't sell a single unit! (Phi whispers in Pangloss' ear.) Oh, um, er, right... That's the online reality. Sorry about that.

Well that makes two of us. BTW, not to change the subject, but I love that "\o/" emoticon -- is that your invention? That's supposed to be the head and arms of a person cheering, right? That's awesome...

Actually, "The US has great healthcare for the privileged elite. Everyone else gets screwed." is a pretty hard statement to misconstrue. Nope, that's about as straightforward as you can get -- there's really no way to distort that to a further extreme. Nice try though, and I'm glad you enjoyed my reply.

I'm not disputing your reference, Bascule, I'm saying that proof of a lower quality of healthcare than other countries does not support the gross exaggeration that "everyone else is getting screwed". Do you really need me to track down some typical family budget information? Haven't you yourself posted that 38 million Americans (or some similar two-digit number) are without healthcare (implying that 262 million Americans have it)? Why can't you simply agree with me that the situation is bad? Why do you HAVE to insist that we're all living in the last gasoline refinery 30 years after the collapse of civilization, hoping against all hope that a crazy man in black leather tights will show up in the last of the V8 interceptors and save us? Again, I'm not even saying that you're wrong in essence. I don't think the healthcare system is working either, and I think it needs our immediate attention. I also think that most people are managing to work with the system at the moment. That doesn't mean I don't think it needs fixing. I think my comparison with the fact that most families are dealing with the new reality of gasoline prices is apt -- they're doing the same thing when it comes to the cost of healthcare. People adapt to the changing situation as best as they can. And every year the situation gets a little worse. But we're not all living in the dilapidated streets of our abandoned cities just yet, and pretending like we are isn't helping. John, that's an excellent observation of what happens; I've seen that a number of times as well. As a consultant and I mainly focus on small office environments, and one of the things I've told my students from time to time is that I've probably seen more companies fail than they will work for in their entire lives. The rising cost of healthcare is clearly on all of their minds. The amounts that they're able to cover for their employers seems to decrease each and every year, and some of them are simply not going to continue to be able to adapt forever. I don't entirely agree with you -- what you're suggesting is what I'd LIKE to see happen, but, and maybe I'm just being cynical here, but I think we're going to find ourselves backed-into socialized medicine because of arguments like those being made above. The American public is no more capable of drawing a distinction between an ideological exaggeration and scientific studies than certain members of this forum are -- arguably less so, in fact. And they have zero experience at finding reasonable solutions, and absolutely nobody is leading them towards any. It's just a matter of time before the right demogogue hits the right note at the right time.

Seems to be working in Iraq, doesn't it? (I can't believe nobody beat me to that....)

That's an exaggeration, in my view. I'm hardly "privileged elite", but I have a great healthcare plan, and in fact my situation is hardly even atypical. I know it's hard for younger people (especially students or people just getting out into the workforce) to understand, but just as most Americans are able to adapt to higher oil prices, most Americans have some kind of handle on their healthcare situation. Whether it's "great" or not is an absolutely debatable point, I agree. And of course tens of millions have nothing, which is clearly not great by anyone's definition. We don't like it, it's not as good a situation as it could be, but it doesn't stop millions of Americans from, say, standing in line for several days to buy a PS3. (They could catch a cold, see... I'm being witty....)

While I'm somewhat hesitent to discuss this, being physically incapable of ever judging the relative level of pain involved in childbirth, I did think it was interesting. It may be somewhat overgeneralizing (I'm sure most American women still take their role in childbirth seriously and this is certainly reflected in typical behavior -- avoiding alcohol, for example) and you could spin the meaning of these trends a number of different ways, but it does seem to reflect some kind of underlying societal difference.

I've added Mr. D's supplementary question to the original post and reopened this thread because he wants his question to go in conjunction with the article he linked above. Enjoy.

I appreciate what you're trying to do, but a subject line like this tends to really confuse folks -- they don't know what the thread is about until/unless they click in. I tell you what, I'll add your question to the original thread, reopen it, and close this one. My moderator hat is dripping with sweat from all the effort!

That's an interesting point.

So this guy thinks he's figured out how they did Stonehenge, and he's made some videos that show how he thinks they did it. He's using the approach to build a full-scale replica on his farm. Cool story and video from YouTube: http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1162736381.shtml The guy's own web site: http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/

Giuliani's problem ultimately is not his temper or criticism of the crime policy. I can sum it up in one phrase from every southerner's favorite movie: "Yankees in Georgia?! Who let them in?!?!" The only way Giuliani carries the south is if he's facing Hillary Clinton. But it's never going to come to that. Remember: The reason the South is so important is not because of the general election, but because of the primary system. Everyone thought John McCain was a shoe-in after New Hampshire (where independents can vote), but South Carolina going to Bush completely destroyed his run. Regarding Newt Gingrich, I've posted this info before, but I don't mind repeating it. He is very good on science and technology, both in understanding it and in supporting logical resolutions. But he also has significant and important connections to the religious right. I first met him at a Science Fiction convention in 1984, where he sat on a panel with Larry Niven and an expert from NASA whom I believe was Owen Gingrich (but I can't say for sure). They talked about space policy and it was fascinating to hear a real politician weigh in on something I was interested in. I'd just acquired the vote the previous year, and lived in his district, and I believe I ended up voting for him four times (at least twice that I can remember for sure -- I moved around a lot). That's the old Newt. The Newt who became Speaker of the House is widely regarded to be a different animal. Since he left Congress he's ressurected that Newt and become a kind of elder statesmen. He teaches and writes, lectures, and of course he's a "Fox News Analyst" (sic). Gingrich carries a huge amount of historical baggage, by the way. It would suck the air right out of the room -- he'd spend all his time explaining various things that came up during his tenure in Congress and never get to talk about issues. But we'll see what happens.

Well perhaps, but it's also probably not a great idea to just assume that a publically-run system will automagically be better. That's not the full history of government-run services in this country. Fortunately we do know how to do these things right when we put our minds to it. If it has to be done, it needs to be done right. I think we'd all agree on that?

I think as we go farther along you're going to see more attacks on Giuliani's crime record. Not everyone was enamored with "The Tipping Point", as we've seen here in previous discussions, and while I personally think the idea (clear up the subway graffiti; crime rate drops, etc) has a lot of merit, it's a very easy thing to spin in another direction. And it's a double-whammy for Giuliani, because normally a politician might be able to just sit on a crime record like that and not explain anything, but when someone spins away the graffiti angle (DemPundit #482 sez, "We're supposed to believe that Giuliani solved the crime rate by cleaning up a few subway cars?"), the record gets marginalized even though it's a great record regardless of the reasons. So that'll be interesting to watch. Aside from that I'm also keeping an eye out for who comes forward to represent the religious right. One name that keeps popping up is Newt Gingrich, who in a sense actually benefitted from the recent election because by, well, not being in Congress at the time.

BTW, the drug companies spent about 11% of their budgets on R&D, and their profit margins were about 16%, in 2006. 16% is very high for a publically traded company -- the kind of lofty territory typically enjoyed only by the drug, insurance and oil industries. Not that there's anything wrong with that, per se. Somebody said earlier in this thread that most of the money in research comes from the drug companies. I've read that as well, but the article I've linked below contradicts that, saying that most of the money comes from NIH (the government). I wonder what's up with that. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/12/AR2006111200718.html