JohnB

This is why I keep saying that partisanship will kill you. People are so busy pointing at the clout the lobbyists have with their opposition that they ignore the fact that their own side is doing the same thing. Bread and Circuses.

Two different Bills? Ye Gods. I have great respect for the US and it's adherence to Democracy, but this bit should be labelled "Designed by Morons, take care." That's incredibly idiotic. I would have to agree. I dare say that when the system was introduced it was designed (speaking in general) to allow each of the thirteen colonies to have a say and prevent the Feds from trampling State rights. However, with the vastly increased number of States it's simply become something that allows everybody an equal chance to screw with a good idea.

Yeah, unicycles are the way to go.

All jokes aside I think this is great news. As I've understood the situation, the biggest hurdle for growing replacement parts is differentiation. It would appear that this researcher has solved it. Imagine the implications. New hearts for heart patients, new limbs for amputees, new eyes, new legs. And all without the need for anti rejection drugs. Yes, this is a very important step.

CaptainPanic, I doubt that the Netherlands could be classified as a "Socialist" state. From your description it is similar to Australia. A Democratic, Capitalist state with many "Social Justice" policies. We see things like Universal Health Care as the logical extension of Fire Brigade, Police and roads. We believe that the individual should not be exploited, either by unscrupulous employers, power hungry unions or by profit hungry Insurance companies and that it is the job of government to ensure a level playing field. Many Americans simply do not understand this way of looking at things. I came to the conclusion years ago that good governance relies on the balancing of three different forces. 1. Government 2. Capital 3. Unions If any one of these three gains too much power, disaster for industry and/or oppression of the people is invariably the result. To each of those three we say "You can do what you want, provided you stay within the set limits". These limits will vary over time depending on the political needs and will of the people as expressed in elections. In a similar fashion as the American right of "Free Speech" does not extend to yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre. So I would say, social justice yes, but socialist no. The problem in discussions is that many Americans cannot distinguish between the two.

Of course. It's just important that the electorate know what they are getting. We have anti abortionists standing on pro abortion tickets. They just make it clear that they disagree with their partys stance on that particular issue. Again a difference in our systems. Our pollies can't filibuster, it's not allowed under the rules of Parliment. Also, (under our system) if a party controls the majority of votes in both the Lower and Upper House, then they are the Government. (The Prime Minister is simply the Leader of the party that has the most seats.) If you have the majority in the Lower House, the Bill passes to the Senate. If you have the majority there, the Bill passes and becomes law. It's that simple. This is why I have so much trouble understanding why things aren't getting done over there. Take the vote and pass the bloody Bill already. I"m sure your system looks quite logical from there, but from the outside it looks very strange.

Mate, I'm married. I know the answer to that one.

Hm, I"m not sure I was clear. Down here, to stand for one of the partys, you agree to support their policies in certain areas. This means that before the election the candidate has agreed to vote in favour of the partys main policies. This way everybody knows where they stand. On this basis it is acceptable to make the pollie toe the line. "You said you'd vote yes. We endorsed you because you promised to vote yes. The people voted for you because you said you'd vote yes. Do what you said you would do." For the pollie to not toe the line on major matters exposes them as liars and frauds and they will suffer the consequences. Note that this really applies to major policy matters and not minor ones. People vote their conscience on the more minor matters. But politicians must be made to live up to the major promises they make. To keep it simple. If a party campaigns on the basis that they will introduce a UHC system (and the other one says they won't) and wins on that basis then there is a contract between the party and the people and the party must fulfil it's obligation and introduce a UHC system. "Vote for us and we will do such and such" means just that. It doesn't mean "Vote for us and we will try to do such and such, provided we can talk our own people into agreeing with the policy." It's very cut and dried. If you do not support the basic Democrat (or Republican) policies, don't stand in their name. To do anything else is deceptive. A person who stands as a Democrat candidate, on a Democrat ticket and with Democrat policies that has no intention of furthering those policies is a liar and a cheat. (Same goes for Republicans, of course)

Fair enough bascule. Our systems are very different. Two biggies that come to mind are; 1. Party Loyalty. Members of a political party are expected to toe the party line. Sort of "We put up the money to pay for your campaign and you said you would endorse our policy initiatives. Vote yes or get out." Peope do vote with the other side, we call it "Crossing the Floor", but in general pollies are expected to vote for the policies they were elected to enact into legislation. In your shoes I would be far more p*ssed at the Dems who are not behind the Bill. They were voted in to enact certain legislation and are failing to do so, which is basically "Breach of Promise". They should get with the program or resign. The Repubs have at least been consistent in their (wrong) opposition in this matter. 2. We have strictly enforced limits as to how long a pollie can speak on the floor. Filibusters are not possible under our system. You need to change the rules. I had to look up "cloture" as we don't have it and have no need for it. Get rid of filibustering and the need for cloture disappears. Either way, the Dems need to put pressure on their own people and get them to toe the line and do what they promised to do. "Vote yes or stand as an independent next time" strikes me as a good line to take. If the Dems got their collective acts together then the filibustering by the Repubs would be easily seen and recognised for the useless delaying tactic that it is. This would only hurt the Repubs in the long run. All of the above is not to say that we don't have many differing viewpoints even within our partys. However part of being a pollie is the agreement between the individual pollie and the party he represents. This is basically that if you are going to stand for election under the banner of a given party, then you will act to enable the policies of that party. To do anything else is dishonest behaviour and you will pay for it at the next election. The party will disendorse you and the voters won't vote for you. You know, it's probably not too late to go to Her Majesty and apologise and ask her to set up a good government for you.

Agreed. On both counts.

Since the Dems have controlled both Houses for a couple of years, wouldn't it be fair to recount the losses in Democrat areas? And, since there are more Dems in both the House and the Senate, wouldn't there be more deaths in Democrat held regions? They have had the numbers for quite some time, yet have done nothing but bitch about the Repubs. This would be truly laughable if it wasn't so serious.

Now do you see why I have trouble with some of the AGW brigade? Be that as it may, you're right. Politics is about making people afraid of what the other side will do. Rather than voting for something, people vote against something. It's not the most popular side that wins, just the side that people are least afraid of on election day. Quite sad really.

I admit to be entertained. Bad behaviour is standard in politics, one of our Prime Ministers called his opposition "scumbags" on the floor of Parliment. But the reaction of left leaning US citizens is hilarious. Politics is politics, it's a carnival sideshow. Most entertaining is that even though the Dems now control the House of Representative, the Senate and the Presidency, they still have trouble getting anything done. And it's still somehow the fault of the Republicans. In any other Parlimentary Democracy the constituents (and media) would be after the gov with both barrels blazing. "You control all branches of government, what more do you bloody well need to get something done? A sign from God?" This partisanship is ruining you. It's stopping you from seeing that the bunch running both houses are incompetent fools. Come on, they have total control, what more do they need? I would also point out that if total control of government is not enough to pass very much needed legislation, then your system is in dire need of major reform.

Agreed SH3RL0CK, the big thing is that most people are under the impression that the IJA had been driven out of the occupied territories, an incorrect assumption. The true brilliance of the "Island Hopping" campaign was that it allowed direct attack on the Japanese mainland without engaging the majority of the IJA forces. It was the ultimate flanking attack. A point to consider is that a number of industries had been moved to China, so even with the home islands blockaded, the IJA in the occupied areas were still recieving shipments of arms and munitions. While it is understandable to worry about the Japanese civillians, I've yet to hear concern for the civillian populations of China, Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, Borneo and all the other occupied territories. I would also point out that while other means to end the war might seem more humane (?) they would have taken longer. The US and her allies were paying a butchers bill every day in a dozen places far removed from the Japanese mainland. How many of Allied servicemen would be sacrificed in favour of Japanese ones? The idea was to end the war as quickly as possible. The Russians had made promises at both Yalta and Potsdam to join the Pacific War as soon as their Neutrality Pact with Japan expired. The pact was renounced by the Soviets on April 5 th, 1945 with a formal declaration of war coming on August 8th, 1945. Magic intercepts show Japanese concerns over Russian troop movements as early as the 23rd April. The Russian declaration was not unexpected. The bottom line is that the best way to reduce both civillian and military casualties on both sides was to end the war as quickly as possible. The documents show that the dropping of the bombs did just that. Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs records show this unequivocably. This statement was made on the day after Hiroshima (8th August), but before news of the Russian Declaration of War had arrived. The Emperor knew the Russians were coming, but it was the "advent of the new weapon" that decided him on surrender. It was a horrible thing, but like I said, it was the best out of a lot of bad choices. I would contend that it is those who think that "There must have been another way" to show that way and provide some sort of evidence that the cost in lives would have been lessened by it's use. Whenever this topic comes up I see a lot of kneejerk reactions and complaints, but I've yet to see anything concrete as to how it could have been done better. Never evidence, just hand waving, supposition and wishful thinking.

I believe your question to be incomplete. The correct phrasing is; "If a tree falls in the forest and hits a mime, does anyone care?"

Agreed and I second the motion. (Of course, I might have been influenced by wizards.)

Yes, it was the right decision. It was the best choice out of a bad list. Roughly 2.5 million men under arms and 12,500 combat aircraft available and the military was "largely defeated"? Think again. I have posted this before, but it must need repeating. This map shows Japanese holdings as at the 1 st August 1945. Also, could you provide some sort of evidence that Japan had "tried to negotiate peace talks with America"? Your link provides Magic intercepts that show the opposite. In fact, if you read this link (Document 64 b) on the page you linked to, you will see that this is the first surrender offer. I had all sorts of comments for this , but seriously, why? Given the time we are talking about, why is it worse to use a nuke than bombs, bullets, firestorms and starvation? (Which were the other options) I know you are big on human rights etc. I can't see how it's ethically worse to use a nuke (given the times) to wipe out a city compared to firestorming one. Why was Hiroshima ethically worse than Hamburg or Dresden? I've read survivors accounts for all these cities and personally find H & D to be far worse. I'd like your thoughts please.

You should see Melbourne. The only place in Oz where you can get all 4 seasons in the one day.

How very true. Jill, I think that is one of the more interesting and profound thoughts on economic modelling that I've ever read. A point would be that your model couldn't predict what their models results will be. This would mean that while their actions would follow a logical course, because of the unknown output of their model the course would be essentially semi random in nature. I do believe you are right.

200 C. Fine with light cloud. A beautiful spring day. Light rain last night washed the dust out of the air. Hemlines going up and necklines going down. I'm on a weeks holiday so I'm just going to sit on the verandah feeding the Kookaburras and Cockatoos, read a book and watch the world go by. Going to the bay islands later in the week to sit on the beach and watch the world go by. Days like this make me really glad to live here.

Interesting. Like bascule I see it as progressive but with the comma in the wrong place. To me the sentence would best be; The government inspector has come, at the moment she is being shown around the factory. Devilish language to learn I'm told.

I must admit, I have doubts about the next maximum being a "doozy" in 2012. The cycle has been so slow to start that it would have to ramp up in a very spectacular manner over the next 2 years to even make "normal" on time.

Go on. Admit it. You're giving me a straight line, aren't you?

I would like to know why you see it that way. Is it something from your previous experience? Jill, I'm an Aussie. (We already have a Universal system and personally I'm in favour of the US finally getting a civilised system.) Consequently we miss some of the nuances of the arguments over there. Let's face it, we only get the Headlines from the US. So it's nice to find out why someone holds the opinion they do. No, I don't. However people who believe that they are doing "good" work sometimes (often) let standards lapse. As they prioritise tasks, doing the good work moves higher and paperwork moves lower in the list. Even governments have this problem. It's a case of "Let's get the job done and worry about the paperwork later." This occurs in all industries and quite frankly, unless there is a legal requirement, often the paperwork never gets done. There is always something that "crops up" and prevents it. So while they are not absolved of responsibility, it is difficult to chastise them for not diverting time, effort and money to meet accountings standards they were not required to meet. (If you get what I mean.) I dare say that there are administrators of those programs who would love to be able to say "But we have to do it, it's the law", and gain some measure of control over financial movements.