Bush opens up a can of whoop a$$ [Archive] - Page 4

moose

Oct. 11, 2001, 12:22 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by magnolia:
I don't believe we need media on the war front. Yes, we need to get the "real" story, but is it worth risking the lives of our military men? I had a cousin serve in the Gulf War. He worked with ordinance (unexploded munitions). Often, reporters would drive onto a base with an unexploded missle or other munitions in their vehicle for my cousins group to check out - which is incredibly dangerous. My cousin was more afraid of their over-eager good intentions than he was of what Hussein would do.
Also, I would think the element of surprise would be a good thing in warfare. It worked great for the terrorists. We need to catch people off their feet! We don't need the media telling us and the Taliban how effective last nights bombing run was.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know the great fear now is information via e-mail, internet , media will kill troops, but I think what Walter Cronkite was trying to say was that we must try not to go always from one extreme to another. He said that war time correspondents existed with all troops to record events and the information could be censored for months, even years after the actual event. The key word is censored. He stressed that as a democracy we don't just have a right to know, but a responsibility to know.

Now we are desperate to succeed in eliminating this organization, but 10-20 years from now, covert operations that are not related to this could become twisted through their own justifications and because of a lack of public knowledge. That is how gov'ts eventually become corrupt. Ironically, we may have become open to such a covert terrorsit attack, partly because we all but removed human intelligence after we learned of atrocities we committed during Viet Nam. It's a pendulum that keeps swinging back and forth that can only be monitored by the information we're given and how we vote based on that info.

I respect Walter Cronkites wisdom, he seen more than a few battles to know.

Magnolia

Oct. 11, 2001, 12:27 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Press shouldn't be in the way... either they're morons or they just weren't properly instructed and whoever coordinates the press corps is not doing their job. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem is that they did happen and they need to not happen. Ever. If the people in charge are lax, they need to not be the people in charge. Being a moron is just not a justifible excuse.

The witchy witch witch of south central NC.

Erin

Oct. 11, 2001, 12:59 PM

Nor, for example, should the incidents at My Lai (and the subsequent cover-up) have happened. Nor should Watergate, or any other number of political fiascos. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The press are a safeguard against our government officials, elected leaders, military personnel, etc., doing something stupid and getting away with it. Likewise, there should be safeguards against the press doing something stupid.

But muzzling them completely and going only by official government accounts is, in my opinion, too drastic and removes one of the checks-and-balances that helps keep the higher-ups in line.

SLW

Oct. 11, 2001, 02:24 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by magnolia:
which I guess is why they say nobody really wins a war, which makes me wonder why we keep having them. Does anybody think that we as a society will ever get beyond using force and violence to solve our problems? /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

The witchy witch witch of south central NC.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wars, to name a few, gave us independence from England in 1776, ended slavery in the 1860's, stopped Hitler in the 1940's and the take over of Kuwait by thugs just a few years ago. That doesn't even touch on the Arab world and it's battles since Mohammad times as the "leader" dating back to 630.

A free press is neccesary! Hummm, Jefferson has a wonderful quote regarding this...I'll have to search for it. However, the press must act responsibly when in the battle zones.

Chaser, thanks for sharing the UN workers comments regarding food drops. Isn't it a crying shame that the country has been covered with landmines by hostile groups and it's something our men are having to cope with along with the natives. I HOPE the food gets to people who need it! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif If the food drops are too far away from people to be of any good I hope they land on landmines so the mines don't kill more people. Pollyanna thinking but it works! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SLW

jparkes

Oct. 11, 2001, 03:46 PM

PESHAWAR, Pakistan, Oct. 11 Kyodo
Afghan civilians in Vardak and Ghazni provinces close to Kabul have burned food packages air-dropped by the United States in protest against U.S. air strikes, according to reports from Afghanistan.
A source in Peshawar, western Pakistan, citing witness accounts from Afghanistan, said several hundred people in each of the two provinces gathered the packets of rice and fruit dropped by the U.S. military, piled them up outside their homes and torched them.
''No need for pity,'' some of them chanted.
''We will fight America to the end.''
On Tuesday, the Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salem Zaeef, denounced the U.S. food drop policy, calling it ''an insult'' to the Afghan people.
U.S. President George W. Bush initiated the food drop policy, saying Afghans -- long suffering from food shortages brought on by drought -- are American friends and that the U.S. air strike was targeted at the Taliban and alleged terrorist Osama bin Laden and his network.
U.S. officials say more than 100,000 food packets have been dropped in Afghanistan.

Oct. 11, 2001, 03:55 PM

Thanks for that info, jparkes.

So, let's save ourselves the trouble and give the food to US citizens right here at home who are hungry. There are plenty of them.

There's been such a traducing undercurrent for the past 40 years or so, to destroy the U.S. from within before triggering a great war. And it looks as though the plan is working....

Sad and scarey!

hobson

Oct. 11, 2001, 04:28 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SLW:

Wars, to name a few, gave us independence from England in 1776, ended slavery in the 1860's, stopped Hitler in the 1940's and the take over of Kuwait by thugs just a few years ago. That doesn't even touch on the Arab world and it's battles since Mohammad times as the "leader" dating back to 630.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed that war has accomplished many things...some good, some not so good. Interesting that we went to war to prevent thugs from taking over other thugs (Kuwait is not exactly a shining beacon of freedom for all citizens), although one certainly does not want to allow that kind of behavior to go on. The largest democracy in the world was created through a nonviolent revolution.

Canter

Oct. 11, 2001, 05:03 PM

I'm not sure that I believe that report about Afghanistans burning the food dropped by Americans. It sounds too much like Taliban propaganda.
Did any of you see that documentary done by the undercover female reporter who wanted to see the area where her father grew up inside Afghanistan?
Many of those unfortunate people would happily trade the Taliban for a bit of fruit or rice.
Besides, they're talking several hundred out of a hundred thousand.

DMK

Oct. 11, 2001, 06:34 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Okay, back to your previously scheduled policy discussions, but let me leave with one last thought - Is "DMK" the humble screen name of a genuine Nobel Laureate???? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh so very not, HYN /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But thanks for the incredible compliment, and feel free to send me my million bucks /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif It's my one claim to fame to be fairly well versed in health care economics. Frankly, an ability to find 8 distances might have served me better! /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

hobson, if you are referring to the country I am thinking of, you also have to give a nod to the fact that the same non-violent revolution (and it was truly amazing) still resulted in partition of the country, thousands massacred in the name of religion, and the creation of a not-so-insignificant country (in the modern scope of things) by the name of Pakistan? Non-violent? Yes. Bloodless? To the great sorrow of Ghandi, no.

And back to COTH Arab Studies...

If you haven't already had a chance to see it, please watch Frontline this week. Very good discussion on the roots of Al Qaeda.

Here's a link to a timeline of terrorism, and a rather thorough discussion of who/where all the various factions originate from. I'd also recommend hitting "home" and checking out the other interviews and links. It's about the most indepth piece I have seen so far (gee, what a surprise)...

evolution of islamic terrorism (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/modern.html)

pinkhorse

Oct. 12, 2001, 04:27 AM

I for one would like to have a sense, uncensored, of what's going on over there. I spent yesterday with an uneasy feeling of, "Who are we killing over there" especially after the murder of the 4 UN workers by "smarter" "smart" bombs. I have very little faith in the US press right now. With Ari Fleischer telling late night talk show hosts what they can and can not say I imagine the press has a pretty tight rein on a bicycle chain bit right now. Even NPR stopped telling people about the UN killings after ATC that night.

Of course, I got home and my husband had heard an interview with a refugee saying that many of the children in his town had been murdered by US bombs.

What does killing civilians have to do with bringing Osama bin Laden to justice? Can someone answer that for me because I just don't understand. It seems pretty much like killing the people who worked at the WTC in order to bring down an icon of western civilization.

hobson

Oct. 12, 2001, 04:48 AM

Indeed, DMK, and this particular place still suffers from quite a number of human rights problems (which is not to say that the US does not, but that's for another discussion).

On another note, the two phrases I hope to never hear again anytime soon:
"Evil-Doers"
"Make NO mistake!"

Please, presidential speech writers...stop the madness! Put the comic books away--this is serious business!

On yet another note, how does one measure policy success? I hear this morning on NPR that the last several days of Afghanistan-bombing have been successful, because "we have al-Qaeda on the run in Afghanistan." Since they have been running around Afghanistan for the past 10 years, I am not sure how this marks a change in status.

If we are campaigning to "drive the terrorists out of their hidden caves" according to Our President, how is bombing not-so-secret radio towers contributing to that? The fact that we're attacking the network indirectly through the Taliban indicates that we don't know where the hidden caves are located, and therefore have no way of knowing whether the terrorists have actually vacated the caves, if in fact they were ever hanging about in caves. Unless that information is being withheld. Maybe there are also secret US military people running around Afghanistan, but I suppose the only way we'll understand in the long run whether or not this particular goal has been met is when we see middle-east/central asia-originated terrorism suddenly end.

We MAY be weakening the Taliban, but since toppling them is not priority number one, who knows how that will proceed. 10 years after bombing the snot out of Hussein, he is still creating a mess in Iraq. It would be nice to see the administration come up with a plan for what to do about Afghanistan when the bombing phase of the operation is concluded--are we going to leave the Taliban in place if we get Bin Laden? Are we going to aid the Northern Alliance (wouldn't that be something - let's just pretend that their reign of terror in the early 90's didn't happen) and let them have another turn at ruining the place?

And in this new climate of "zero-tolerance" of terrorism, I'm curious about the fact that little has been said about home-grown terrorism. After Bin Laden is found, the Orange Order thugs will still insist that marching season HAS to take them directly through the middle of Catholic neighborhoods, and the IRA will continue importing arms from the US and elsewhere. Will the US stop soft-pedaling the intentions of abortion clinic terrorists? Do we plan to root out right-wing militia terrorists? Surely there are other McVeighs in the making out there in Idaho.

horsluvr

Oct. 12, 2001, 04:53 AM

I know! Let's have the press publicize everymove the US makes and then the terrorists can know ahead of time what we are doing and initiate evasive moves! Just like Desert Storm. Live war, all war all the time! Good idea. What a novel concept.Maybe Mr Clinton can establish phone contact with Bin Laden and just TELL him what is going on here. Remember, loose lips, unzips!

horsluvr

Oct. 12, 2001, 04:56 AM

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Maybe if Clinton had kept his promises, an estimated 7,000 people would be alive today.

This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show. Without casting stones, it is a legitimate question. There are two men, both extremely wealthy. One develops relatively cheap software and gives hundreds of millions of dollars to charity. The other sponsors terrorism. That being the case, why is it that the US government has spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over the past ten years than Osama bin Laden?

I wish I could credit the author.

Magnolia

Oct. 12, 2001, 05:45 AM

Good point about Bill Gates... and with all the other monopolies we ignore...

Did anyone see the special with Peter Jennings last night about how we got into this mess? Apparently it was very good. They talked about how middle eastern citizens, especially youth are very tired of living in dictatorships that the US props up, but at the same time, showed the pervasiveness of western culture - MTV like television and the like. They also talked about Isreal and other things. Very good studying for COTH Arab studies.

The witchy witch witch of south central NC.

DMK

Oct. 12, 2001, 06:28 AM

Gee horsluvr, maybe if Pres Ronnie had taken the sage advice of his very own Secretary of Defense (Weinberger) over that of George Schultz (Sec of State), he would have chosen to respond to Beiruit with a) a large enough force of Marines to get the job done that they were assigned to do and b) followed up with diplomatic efforts, instead of a) ignoring the diplomatic front and b) sending over a clearly inadequate force, leaving them exposed like sitting ducks in the wake of obvious threats to their security. Yup, maybe if he had listened to Casper, who being the Secretary of DEFENSE and all, probably had a good feel for these things, perhaps the Marines wouldn't have suffered the second largest loss of life in their long and illustrious career?

Then as a follow up to that massacre, maybe he could have sent an air raid to the base where US and Israeli intelligence led us to believe the terrorists had a training camp (any of this sound familiar), because that surely would have been more effective than bombing the hills above the city, safe from our ships (a move that was widely seen as ineffective and spineless by pretty much everyone). Those events gave an established group of terrorists a taste of victory, followed by a lesson that we would not seriously strike back. I doubt the lesson was lost on them.

Probably the only good thing to come out of those events is a younger Colin Powell observed the consequences when his boss (Weinberger) failed to persuade Reagan to his position. I doubt the lesson was lost on him either.

Regardless of my political leanings, I KNOW Reagan did not foresee the slaughter of those Marines (and at the Embassy weeks before). I think he wsa faced with multiple options, and he made the best decision he could with the information at hand. And it was wrong. Welcome to the club. Every President since Carter (and I am sure many before) has made disasterous decisions regarding the safety of Americans in the face of terrorism.
Since they are not evil or stupid, it's just possible that they made the best decision at the time with the information at hand. Otherwise I think you need to sweep your paintbrush just a tad bit wider...

Oh, and hobson - I'm with you on that evil-doer thing - I feel like I should be looking for some superheroes. Just call OBL & his cohorts "Islamic Extremist Terrorists"... I find that strikes plenty of fear in my heart. But then I have been accused of using too many big words in my every day speech, so I probably don't represent the pulse of the American public (yes, ask anyone who knows me, I pretty much talk like I write /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Pixie Dust

Oct. 12, 2001, 06:55 AM

No one wins a holy war.

If you want to blame Clinton for not solving the terrorist problem, well then are you going to blame Reagan for not solving it, after 241 marines were killed by a suicide bomber in 1983. Are you going to blame Bush Sr. for not solving the Iraq problem.....and why is it that Dubya hasn't done anything to quell terrorism until 9/11? Blaming the president is SO easy isn't it, but the fact is it's a very complicated problem and not easily solved. It's not black and white.

Betsy (in Md.)

Oct. 12, 2001, 07:12 AM

Suggestion:
Instead of attempting to assign blame to whichever presidential figure that we dislike, perhaps we should re-examine our national policy of propping up oppressive dictators. As examples I offer:
1) The Shah of Iran
2) Marcos
3) The regime of terror instituted by the Dulles brother on the people of Guatemala.
4) The royal family of Kuwait.

Why are we always so surprised when extremists who oust said dictators don�t like us ?

Pixie Dust

Oct. 12, 2001, 07:45 AM

that armed and trained Bin Laden? Guess that wasn't such a good idea after all...ooops...:eek:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jl:
perhaps we should re-examine our national policy of propping up oppressive dictators. As examples I offer:
1) The Shah of Iran
2) Marcos
3) The regime of terror instituted by the Dulles brother on the people of Guatemala.
4) The royal family of Kuwait.

Why are we always so surprised when extremists who oust said dictators don?t like us ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oct. 12, 2001, 08:08 AM

G.Washington warned the U.S. against "entangling alliances" long long ago.

How 'bout we
*quit sending food abroad or buying food from abroad until all our citizens have adequate food
*preserve our agricultural lands, and indeed our agri-culture.
*insist that companies bring our heavy industry home and create jobs right here
*quit selling any form of arms abroad
*quit supporting anyone else's government. It's their countries. Let their people run them.
*acknowledge that our form of government and our culture is not right for every country
*forbid foreign ownership of our businesses, esp. those essential to nat'l security & defense (I'm talking stocks here, not the nice Indian gentleman who runs our local quick-mart.)
*overhaul our educational system
*thoroughly screen those immigration visas - starting with student visas. Make sure that people here on temporary visas go home when their visas expire.
*forbid people in government or defense positions to own stock in other countries, where a conflict of interest could occur
*basically, do business on a cash basis with the rest of the world without trying to influence their governments, their religion or their thinking.
*form temporary alliances for mutual benefit when appropriate, with a time limit, not long-term entangling alliances that come back to bite us in the butt
*provide financial incentives to encourage manufacture of most goods at home, and to encourage purchasing home-produced goods from CD's to t-shirts to cars to horses.
*quit selling our intellectual properties abroad. Let our customers buy our products, not the means of producing them.
*maintain diplomatic, business and cultural ties with countries so long as they do not attack us diplomatically, financially, culturally or physically.
*quit being the striking arm of the U.N. Let the other nations in the U.N. take their fair share of the responsibility.

etc. etc.

Then, maybe, we could rebuild our infrastructure, deal with our domestic problems in an intelligent fashion with the money saved from foreign aid to assist in the process, look to the education, employment and life quality of our own citizens, and deal in a business-like but basically neutral position with the rest of the world.

The Rattlesnake flag says "Don't tread on me" - a good motto, but we need to remember that the rattlesnake will defend itself but not go looking for trouble.

Before the combined rage of the thread descends on my head, remember, the ideas outlined above work quite well for Switzerland, Sweden and other countries too. Might work just fine for us.

Zipping flame suit now!

hobson

Oct. 12, 2001, 08:41 AM

pt, this really has to stop. How can we go on like this, agreeing about some stuff?

Actually, I think most of those make a lot of sense, and are advocated by us little devils in the subversive left. I still think that we should remain open to international military engagement for humanitarian purposes (like, I think we REALLY should have done something to save tens of thousands of Rwandans from being brutally hacked to death, and I was saying in 1996 that taleban needed to be stomped on, but that's just me talking). The trouble with that is when those in power twist the meaning of "humanitarian" to mean protecting the interests of US multinationals abroad and such.

hobson

Oct. 12, 2001, 08:58 AM

And by the way, good luck in getting US consumers to agree to pay higher prices for consumer goods - globalization means lower prices, because we can make use of sweatshop and other forms of cheap labor to produce our sneakers and jeans. As such, US exploitation--errr,employment of foreign labor and resources is a great part of what enables us to live in the style to which we are accustomed.

Oct. 12, 2001, 09:04 AM

If we keep agreeing, we'll start getting along. And then maybe others will start getting along.
And before we know it, peaceful coexistence will become a real possibility.

Quel horreur!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

See - not all conservatives are spawn of Evil.
The scary thing is, neither are all liberals... /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

I feel much better to hear that you do recognize the need for some defense capabilities.

I hear you, too, about situations like Rwanda and similar situations. That's where I wish (since we're blue-skying) that there were a truly effective international accord for such situations. We aren't there yet, but the worldwide reaction to the WTC attack is encouraging - even if some of the allies are a bit lukewarm due to their domestic problems.

Wouldn't it be nice if such situations as the WTC, and even the Israeli-Pakistan conflict, could be presented to some form of international tribunal that actually had the recognition and power to make its determinations stick. That would mean each nation might perceive themselves as giving up a part of their sovereignity, but it's still a long way from "world government" and in a small world, we need the rule of law more than ever.

I'm rambling - see, Hobson, your agreement just blew my mind... /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

moose

Oct. 12, 2001, 09:05 AM

PT, I agree with you on many levels, but I think think the world, because of communication, travel, technology, etc. this century more than ever is becoming more connected, these are the growing pains and what we decide in each battle will decide whether we survive as a species. There are so many things I disagree with in Arab/muslim culture, and in regards to their take on Israel, but I think we do need to pay attention to how we are viewed.

This is only the beginning, eventually we will have to encounter Govt's in Africa, Asia, etc all striving to attain power, all also striving to reach past dictatorships, terrorists, all managing to attain modern war weapons.

We went into Afghanistan to protect western interests against Russia and than under the guise of not getting involved and minding our own business (which seemed appropriate at the time) we left. This is the result.

I have to add that for someone who was not a Bush supporter, I have been endlessly impressed with his speeches and his approach. While some may think his efforts to enlighten and encourage children to send a dollar to Afghanistan may be just propaganda, it is the propaganda I'd like to see being used.

HeyYouNags

Oct. 12, 2001, 09:07 AM

Hobson and pt, don't forget to work this into the equation:

CHEAP OIL!!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

M. O'Connor

Oct. 12, 2001, 09:09 AM

I agree that the information there is pretty comprehensive--

During my last semester of college I did an independent study on terrorism; I was very frustrated at that time ('84) at the paucity of academic material on the subject--nearly every bibliography led back to the same scant sources...there was very little available from the State Department, and not much on the ideology of Islamic fundamentalism beyond the obvious Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It is indeed possible that our leadership was acting based on what little information was available. Certainly, most ordinary Americans were effectively blindsided by the Iranian revolution as our attention for some number of decades had been directed elsewhere; this is likely true for our leadership as well...(remember that Carter, a reluctant Cold Warrior, whose primary accomplishment was the Camp David Accord, had taken over from Ford, who had not been elected, but finished out the term of Nixon, whose embroilment in Watergate fairly well eclipsed any attention paid to opening up China; apart from this, our country was still pulling back internationally after Vietnam....) If any mistakes were made, it seems that both Republican and Democratic administrations would seem to be equally at fault historically--but perhaps it is simply true that the scope of the hatred and evolution of the radical idologies could not have been anticipated. I would suggest that the policies of constructive social and economic engagement, predicated on the existance of legitimate, politically stable regimes sensitive to human rights would have a better chance of success given our shrinking globe than the isolationist yearnings that pt has outlined. But that is a lot easier to say than to accomplish.

M. O'Connor

Oct. 12, 2001, 09:20 AM

EEK, look at what has been happening whilst my fingers have been busy typing--I emerge from the "post reply" mode to find that strides toward peace have been made by our own hobson and pt....

You guys are cracking me up

-- hobson's "evil-doers" post! Yes, our leaders have become surreal in their description of our enemies!

pt--no spawns of evil, indeed???!!!lololol....

"Onward marches the resurrected topical topic......"

Oct. 12, 2001, 09:30 AM

the policies of constructive social and economic engagement, predicated on the existance of legitimate, politically stable regimes sensitive to human rights would have a better chance of success given our shrinking globe

Yes, good point. Big problem though, how do we predicate legitimate, politically stable regimes sensitive to human rights? We have a terrible track record on supporting various regimes which have turned out to be at least as bad as what they replaced. And not all nations are at the same stage of political development - what works for some doesn't work for others, and many still put sensitivity to human rights way down on the list of priorities. Just look at the Taliban and the Northern Alliance, both. No guarantees.

That's why I truly believe that we need to step back and out, defend our own borders and citizens, and let other nations figure out their own policies. I really don't care if Arab nations are willing to drape their women in the living room curtains, so long as they can't impose that style on me. That may sound like NIMBY, but really, it's allowing self-determination to cultures which differ from our own.

Of course, we take the chance that some of the nations are entering an imperialist phase of development, which would pose another problem...

As for cheap labor and cheap oil - yup, there might be a change in our lifestyle on purchased goods, but we tend to forget the oil producing nations want to sell their product as much as other nations want to buy it...the economic fallout isn't entirely predictable. Except, maybe we might restore a good system of public transportation - even the RR's - and develop alternative energy sources. Wouldn't that be nice!

Of course, the problem we're in right now has a great deal to do with breaching our borders, attacking our citizens, and the preaching of a policy of eliminating western civilization, esp. the U.S. Regardless of how this got started, it doesn't seem that anyone can expect us to lie down and die because OBL thinks we should.

My blue-sky thinking conveniently leaps over the present mess to some sort of international equilibrium to examine ways of handling things differently in the future.

Gosh, I dunno any more than anyone else does - just groping for ideas here -

I am DAM' sick of our so-called internationalism, though, which has done little for the mass of our citizens, doesn't appear to have stabilized anything, and has made us a hissing and a byword in parts of the world. I'd really just rather stay home and miss the party!

halfhalt

Oct. 12, 2001, 09:35 AM

You guys are being awfully brilliant considering it is a friday....

Erin

Oct. 12, 2001, 09:36 AM

If Hobson and PT are still agreeing on things, the planets must be in alignment today! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Glad to see people are continuing with lively discussion while ignoring the trolls, like good little BBers should. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by pt:
That's why I truly believe that we need to step back and out, defend our own borders and citizens, and let other nations figure out their own policies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

PT, I agree with that for the most part... I don't feel like we should tell other countries what to do. But what about situations like Nazi Germany? Not that we got involved in that until we had to, either...

I dunno... I feel like it would be nice if the US could use its considerable might to try to stop serious human rights violations. But it seems, more often that not, that causes as many problems as it solves. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

*sigh*

hobson

Oct. 12, 2001, 09:36 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by pt:
Wouldn't it be nice if such situations as the WTC, and even the Israeli-Pakistan conflict, could be presented to some form of international tribunal that actually had the recognition and power to make its determinations stick. That would mean each nation might perceive themselves as giving up a part of their sovereignity, but it's still a long way from "world government" and in a small world, we need the rule of law more than ever.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This could exist if only the UN had more teeth. One wishes that a certain nation whose name we won't mention would be a better-behaved participant in global issues. The US is not the best neighbor in the world when it comes to promoting global peace...I mean, we won't sign on to no-brainer stuff like anti-land mine treaties, and treaties banning children in the military? What's up with that?

It goes for democratic and republican administrations alike that the US has for some time undermined the UN's ability to enact meaningful treaties that would reduce conflict in a number of ways. And we KNOW why the US does not like the idea of an international tribunal--the existence of one would mean that Dr Kissinger gets pounced on immediately by Spain and Belgium (who would like to see him arrested NOW--you'll notice that Henry never travels to Spain), and is indicted for crimes against humanity. THAT would shine rather too bright a light on the history of US foreign policy.

Anyhoo, I wish you'd stop calling me a liberal, pt. I prefer "subversive pinko lefty radical bleeding-heart tree-hugger." /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

halfhalt

Oct. 12, 2001, 09:45 AM

I was merely agreeing with hobson that the "make no mistake about it" lingo has got to go...

hobson

Oct. 12, 2001, 09:50 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Erin:
That's why I truly believe that we need to step back and out, defend our own borders and citizens, and let other nations figure out their own policies. "

PT, I agree with that for the most part... I don't feel like we should tell other countries what to do. But what about situations like Nazi Germany? Not that we got involved in that until we had to, either...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nazi Germany is a good comparison, in my opinion, to what the current taleban regime is doing to Afghani women. I think to call it a "cultural difference" is to minimize the outrageous murderousness and savagery involved. Incidentally, that kind of extreme discrimination and violence against women has little to do with Islam itself and much to do with a tradition of--dare I say it--dictatorial patriarchy. Most of the Islamic states today remind me a lot of the medieval Christian societies, in fact.

DMK

Oct. 12, 2001, 10:17 AM

I dunno, PT, hobson... this peace and harmony is looking mighty scary /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Isolationism has certainly been the attempted goal of US policy for the majority of our history, but sadly, technology and communications don't give a rat's patootie about our policy, so I think it is a dream we pragmatically need to give up.

As you said, hobson, the UN is that international tribunal, and it has more power now than it has ever had. Given that nations can and do act in their self interest, any power that the UN has must be willingly conferred upon it by the participating nations in general and the Security Council in particular.

Since the US, China, Russia, France and Great Britain (security council members) are no more willing to give up their power today than they were in the middle of the Cold War, I can only believe that the reason the UN has greater influence today is because of that very interdependence that globalism creates. Such globalism is certainly the reason why Pakistan is willing to risk internal conflict if they assist the US in this effort. And it goes a long way to explaining the global coalition in general.

M.O'C - about the time you were doing your terrorism thing, I was researching ethnic disturbances in the Soviet Union and its autonomous oblasts (now known collectively as all those "stan" countries). I had a lot more data to work with, unless you consider the fact I had to get it from Pravda... /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Pixie Dust

Oct. 12, 2001, 10:28 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by pt:
G.Washington warned the U.S. against "entangling alliances" long long ago.

Before the combined rage of the thread descends on my head, remember, the ideas outlined above work quite well for Switzerland, Sweden and other countries too. Might work just fine for us.

Zipping flame suit now!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, I sure can't find fault in your voicing your opinion, these are the kinds of posts I find interesting. On some levels I agree with you, but I think it is WAY too late; we are in too deep. America is TOO free and set in free markets and capitolism.
Betsy (in Md.)

Oct. 12, 2001, 10:50 AM

Here's another interesting Frontline link:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/lessons.html

Sorry - I don't know how to do an actual link, so you'll have to click 'n go.

Erin

Oct. 12, 2001, 11:07 AM

Oh no, halfhalt, wasn't referring to you at all!

Magnolia

Oct. 12, 2001, 11:53 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>The trouble with that is when those in power twist the meaning of "humanitarian" to mean protecting the interests of US multinationals abroad and such.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh c'mon now, we'd never do that! We're like superman- we only go after the EVIL ONES! to save the poor suffering innocents suffering from the evil.

And, if we isolated ourselves, our cheap oil might dry-up and we'd have to do something crazy like invent a clean car that runs on hemp, and then we'd have to let people grow hemp and it would mess up our drug war and people would go crazy.
/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The witchy witch witch of south central NC.

Pixie Dust

Oct. 12, 2001, 12:09 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by magnolia:
Quote:
And, if we isolated ourselves, our cheap oil might dry-up and we'd have to do something crazy like invent a clean car that runs on hemp, and then we'd have to let people grow hemp and it would mess up our drug war and people would go crazy.
/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The witchy witch witch of south central NC.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did ya see that article in the Post about the kids who drove across the country & back in a Mercedes fueled by Hemp Oil?

There was also quote by the head of the DEA (I think that's who it was) and it was "Hemp is Marijuanna"
/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Betsy (in Md.)

Don't assume malice for what stupidity can explain.

hobson

Oct. 12, 2001, 12:09 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by magnolia:Oh c'mon

And, if we isolated ourselves, our cheap oil might dry-up and we'd have to do something crazy like invent a clean car that runs on hemp, and then we'd have to let people grow hemp and it would mess up our drug war and people would go crazy.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Magnolia, you have the NUTTIEST ideas. Next thing, you're going to be suggesting that
clean fuel cell technology exists, but a Very Big Oil Company bought the patent and won't let it go on the market for use in passenger vehicles! We have a Free Market, after all! THAT's the crazy idea! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Magnolia

Oct. 12, 2001, 12:17 PM

What, do you think I'm a friggin commie like you? I don't wear red and I don't run. Heck, if those darn eco-nuts would just stop telling us what to do and let us drill the ANWR we would never need oil again from those darn creeps again. But then again, those are the same people that want us to only eat granola and soybeans and wear eco-shoes. And that's probably what Bin Ladebn would make us do if he took over - drink soy milk. oh yes, and he'd make us wear sandals too.

BTW, I bet we could modify hemp plants so that they don't produce that evil marijuana stuff... then we could grow hemp! Which Thomas Jefferson grew. And, we had farmers grow it for WW1 (made great rope and other things).

OK, I need to have a nice glass of water and a nap.

The witchy witch witch of south central NC.

gwen

Oct. 12, 2001, 12:27 PM

ONLY A GLASS OF WATER???? /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Barb /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

hobson

Oct. 12, 2001, 12:33 PM

Magnolia, you rabid libertarian! What color is that?

Magnolia

Oct. 12, 2001, 12:45 PM

Because money is all that matters and green is the color of my precious hemp. /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
Well, maybe gold, yes, I like that color too. And maybe it is better than green, because that's what those eco-commies like you like. Green and Red. Yup, you are trying to subvert Giftmas by attaching your communist colors to it, so I can't be associated with green or red, so gold it is. That's my color!

The witchy witch witch of south central NC.

hobson

Oct. 12, 2001, 12:55 PM

OK, NOW I'm running for my life! You'll have to pry my cold dead lips open and pour it in before a drop of that horrid eco-solvent goes anywhere near me!!!

But anyway...

Magnolia

Oct. 12, 2001, 01:07 PM

Why does this topic always somehow end up about food? First peeps, now soymilk.
Fabio... there, I said it. Now we've digressed to sexy men and food. Give us a few more pages, we'll be on to Scott Baio and cheetos before you know it.
I have our solution - Fabio can go to Afghanistan and blind the Taliban with his rugged good looks and golden locks. (We can have David Hasselhof and Richard Dean Anderson as back ups.) While they are mystified by the western gods, we can spray them with I can't believe it's not butter spray, and stuff peeps in their guns. That should take care of things. Doesn't everyone wish I was the world leader now?

The witchy witch witch of south central NC.

HeyYouNags

Oct. 12, 2001, 01:19 PM

A pox upon you, soy-haters. (Not a cutaneous anthrax pox, though). Try the plain soy milk. It's almost like skim.

Now you'll tell me you don't like pale blue milk, either.

Organic tofu - it's what's for supper!!!

Magnolia

Oct. 12, 2001, 01:25 PM

Tofu is one of my favorite foods, but frankly, soymilk is awful, except for Silk brand chocolate and eggnog flavor. But that costs $9000.00. That stuff in the septic packs is so gross, but my honey loves it.

OOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooo, while were talking about wholesome food, my grocery store is carrying these awesome things called Vegitinos that are soy meat balls. Tasty tasty treat!

OK, now I'm really off topic. OOOooo, not quite, they dropped vegetarian food in afghanistan. Probably the tempeh patties the military troops refused to eat, so they had to get rid of it....

The witchy witch witch of south central NC.

Magnolia

Oct. 12, 2001, 01:27 PM

Darn, I blew my cover. I really wanted you all to think I was a Rush Limbaugh supporter, but now that I have shared my love of soyfoods with you, that cover is blown. /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

The witchy witch witch of south central NC.

hobson

Oct. 12, 2001, 01:28 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by magnolia:

I have our solution - Fabio can go to Afghanistan and blind the Taliban with his rugged good looks and golden locks. (We can have David Hasselhof and Richard Dean Anderson as back ups.)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You see, magnolia, this is why we can never trust you as a leader.

Heidi

Oct. 12, 2001, 01:35 PM

Word of advice for the commie soybean ingesters on the BB - venture to a Korean market and buy mung bean jello. With a bit of soy sauce, teeny pinch of sesame oil, sesame seeds, and sliced green onions on top, it's very delish.

Magnolia, if you're elected el presidentesse, as the recipient of David Hasselhoff's saliva (in my hair), I'm eminently qualified to be your vice-presidenteuse.

Magnolia

Oct. 12, 2001, 01:36 PM

But Mac Gyver and Baywatch are universally loved by the whole world. Why, I bet if we offered Pamela Anderson as a trade for Bin Laden, the Taliban would ship his but right over.
Look, Hobson, those books and NPR put you in a fantasy world.

The witchy witch witch of south central NC.

Magnolia

Oct. 12, 2001, 01:39 PM

I need to hear your story. How, pray tell, did you get David Hasselhoff saliva in your hair, and more importantly, did you ever wash it????

The witchy witch witch of south central NC.

HeyYouNags

Oct. 12, 2001, 01:41 PM

Okay, Magnolia, you've suggested exchanging Pamela Anderson for Bin Laden, now we need a name for this new covert operation. Let's see, we've had "arms for hostages", I guess this would be "Boobs for Beards"??

Magnolia

Oct. 12, 2001, 01:53 PM

Welcome to my cabinet. Boobs for Beards is perfect. I just hope they don't retaliate when they find out they're fake......

The witchy witch witch of south central NC.

Kellybird

Oct. 12, 2001, 02:02 PM

...Perhaps the beard is fake and Bin Laden really is a woman and we can skip the sex-change operation idea and just give him a shave--wait noo....

heidi--how on earth did you end up with David Hasselhoff's saliva in your hair, and for the last time...

FABIO is FOUL /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

HeyYouNags

Oct. 12, 2001, 02:04 PM

In my new cabinet post, I plan to make a list of starlets who will be shipped off to Afghanistan, to be sacrificed for the greater good. I'm figuring on one Taliban mujahaddin per pair of silicone enhancements. And we'll toss in a few of those really skinny ones, like Calista Flockheart, if the Afghans will agree. Maybe two or three of those per mujahaddin.

We'll solve the terrorist problem and improve the state of U.S. arts and entertainment in one swoop.

Magnolia

Oct. 12, 2001, 02:14 PM

Throw in Rosie O'Donnell - she can annoy them to death!

The witchy witch witch of south central NC.

Natty Dread

Oct. 12, 2001, 02:17 PM

Jesus--I go away for a few days and you guys are still going at it? There are like 12 new pages on this thread since I last looked and there is no way in hell that I am gonna pour over all of it...What does come to mind is that great song by Bob Marley.....something like LEGALIZE IT!!!
As for Libertarians...count me in!! I voted Libertarian in the last 4 elections-hell I am a dues paying member.

Heidi

Oct. 12, 2001, 03:45 PM

ROTFLMAO! I love it - boobs for beards! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

In answer to the David Hasselhoff queries, Cannes, 1996, standing in front of Mr. H., he gets rather animated explaining something of Great Importance I'm Sure, spittle flies from his mouth to my hair. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

brilyntrip

Oct. 13, 2001, 02:57 AM

The last time I read this thead there were arguments about WW11 the bottom line etc .Now I am chuckling about BOOBS FOR BOMBS hahahahahaha!I knew that heidi would lighten things up!

vineyridge

Oct. 13, 2001, 07:59 AM

Tranquilizer darts

Blowguns or pistols modified to shoot tranquilizer darts.

If they can bring down an elk or a rhino, they can certainly bring down a hijacker.

And if you use a blowgun, you don't need to worry about shooting holes in the plane.

Now back to Arab Studies 101

M. O'Connor

Oct. 14, 2001, 04:26 AM

NY Times, Sunday, 10/14

Nurturing Young Islamic Hearts and Hatreds (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/14/international/asia/14SCHO.html)

Reading this gave me the creeps!!

SLW

Oct. 14, 2001, 07:40 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by M. O'Connor:
NY Times, Sunday, 10/14

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/14/international/asia/14SCHO.html

Reading this gave me the creeps!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is so messy and YES creepy.

SLW

DMK

Oct. 14, 2001, 08:41 AM

Oh my... No shortage of comparisons to the Brown Shirts, are there?

I especially liked this statement...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>"The Koran forbids the killing of females, children, elders and cattle,� [emphasis added] he said. "That is war. That is not holy war." Sons of Islam must answer that tyranny with holy war, he said.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly who did they think was in the WTC?

So I guess the logic is that Bin Laden & cohorts declared war by the Koran�s interpretation, as opposed to holy war, seeing as everything but cattle on that list resided in those Towers. We responded likewise, probably killing innocent civilians unintentionally and a few cattle for good measure, so now that means the only response is holy war?

God save me from people who trot religion out to justify their own desire for power and revenge... /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Linny

Oct. 14, 2001, 12:21 PM

Remember, DMK they claim that Muslims and Osama bin Laden aren't responsible for Sept 11. They are claiming that the Jews are behind the suicide plot. (That claim seems odd now that OBL ha essentially taken responsibilty for the attacks on Al-Jezeera tv)

BEQS clique. With elbows in!

Snowbird

Oct. 14, 2001, 01:10 PM

She made me beat her to death because she wouldn't stop crying.

I shot the guy because he stepped on my foot and didn't say excuse me!

I ran the guy over with my car and it was not my fault I ate a Twinkie just before the incident and wasn't responsible

My kid wouldn't eat his supper so I threw him on the floor, I didn't know he was going to die!

Magnolia

Oct. 14, 2001, 01:16 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> I ran the guy over with my car and it was not my fault I ate a Twinkie just before the incident and wasn't responsible <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, Snowbird, that funky white stuff they put in twinkies can cause hallucinations if you eat enough of it. So, technically, that could have been the fault of the twinkie.
First soy milk, now twinkies, which food shall be kicked around next?

The witchy witch witch of south central NC.

Snowbird

Oct. 14, 2001, 01:30 PM

The great evil sent to ruin us all.

Chocolate...Coffee...Tea...Sugar
The devil made us do it!

Foods that can be blamed for all the evils of the world. We are just victims! I mean we didn't know they were bad until it was too late so now you can't blames us for what we do.

We won the big war by giving all the troops an unlimited supply of cigarettes, could it be we have lost all the other wars because the troops don't have cigarettes?

Imagine those who got the food packs didn't know what peanut butter was. The all American staple food. Now perhaps we have an answer to the problem we need to send out missionaries to explain to them how good peanut butter is for you. If we had taught them about peanut butter, how could they ever hate us again?

We must have Ambssadors to go to see Bin Laden and explain that we are not the great Satan, or even infidels we are the victims of our diet and therefore need help and forgiveness not war. Just poor sinners looking to be saved with good food.

M. O'Connor

Oct. 14, 2001, 02:02 PM

<<"The Koran forbids the killing of females, children, elders and cattle,??? [emphasis added] he said. "That is war. That is not holy war." Sons of Islam must answer that tyranny with holy war, he said.>>

You have to wonder at a people that consigns females (half it's population), children (future of the human race), elders (source of wisdom) to the same heap as cattle....either cattle are really important in this view, or.....??

DMK

Oct. 14, 2001, 03:10 PM

I was thinking the same thing M.O'C!

I mean I think I could go with a little more latitude on this issue if we were talking Hinduism and Sacred Cows... /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

M. O'Connor

Oct. 14, 2001, 03:17 PM

I got interrupted while I was writing the above post...perhaps I shouldn't have lumped "a people" so quickly together with a small percentage of radical religious leaders...

Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl

Oct. 14, 2001, 06:24 PM

Actually Magnolia -
The "Twinkie defense" was first used - successfully - in the 80's. When Dan White, a San Francisco supervisor, shot Harvey Milk, the (openly gay) Mayor of SF to death, when it came to trial he claimed that the twinkies he had been eating affected him. He was acquitted of murder, convicted of manslaughter. Riots ensued.
What has soy milk been blamed for? (Or am I again exposing my highly intermittent reading of this thread???)

hobson

Oct. 14, 2001, 06:38 PM

Egads, Jeannette, are you actually trying to defend soy milk? I am aghast. I frankly suspect you of being a closet Fabiocrat!

Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl

Oct. 14, 2001, 06:43 PM

Senator Hobson, I am not now, nor have I ever been a Fabiocrat.
As to soy milk, I plead a quart.
Would you reduce my sentence if I pointed you to a band of Peepophiles?

Jumphigh83

Oct. 15, 2001, 04:50 AM

Muslims believe that if they are buried with a pig, they will go to hell as the pig is unclean. One potbelly on each flight ought to do the trick.

Betsy
Lead, follow, or get out of the way...

M. O'Connor

Oct. 15, 2001, 05:42 AM

the ones who are doing it out of just plain nastiness would probably not care about the pig...

Wasn't there a recent story about a pig on an airliner? As I recall, it didn't work out so well....

DMK

Oct. 15, 2001, 06:03 AM

Good point M.O'C - wouldn't the pig die as a martyr and be greeted with however many virgin pigs such things call for? /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

And of course, we won't even discuss how quickly a female pig would be dispatched...

As a side note, Marvin Harris wrote a great little book called Cows, Pigs, Witches and Wars, which is about the origins of certain taboos like Mother Cow (India) and taboos against pork (shared by both major religions of the middle east). Fascinating stuff, and he makes a good case for strong economic reasons for the taboos.

Magnolia

Oct. 15, 2001, 06:38 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> The "Twinkie defense" was first used - successfully - in the 80's. When Dan White, a San Francisco supervisor, shot Harvey Milk, the (openly gay) Mayor of SF to death, when it came to trial he claimed that the twinkies he had been eating affected him. He was acquitted of murder, convicted of manslaughter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought Snowbird was joking about twinkies. That is just nuts. I like twinkies, what, pray tell did the twinkies do to effect this man? was it some kind of sugar OD or something?

The witchy witch witch of south central NC.

HeyYouNags

Oct. 15, 2001, 08:31 AM

Didn't the Twinkie Defense claim that the crime was committed during a sugar high? Fortunately, that will probably be the first and last time the Twinkie Defense ever rests...

DMK, does that book you just mentioned claim economic reasons for food taboos? I had always heard that the basis for the taboos was health - i.e., ancient civilizations were able to make an association between consumption of pork, or other taboo foods, and disease, long before we identified trichinella, tapeworm cysts, etc. in meat.

Ooops, shouldn't say anything bad about pork, or I'll be slapped with a lawsuit by the other white meat people.

That pig-on-a-plane thing, wasn't it an alleged "assistance animal"? A seeing eye pig or something. The seeing white meat. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

M. O'Connor

Oct. 15, 2001, 08:51 AM

Whatever it was, I think it did not respond to the concept of air travel in a polite way. I just can't remember what actually happened....guess I'll knuckle under to trivial curiosity and do a search on pig/airliner...

I can not believe I am spending time doing this on such an otherwise (mostly) serious thread...but in the interest of following up on another posters (haa Betsy, now I've credited you with responsibility for this goose-I mean, pork chase) here is what I found:

<U.S. officials investigate case of flying pig

Oct 30, 2000 - (courtesy of Reuters - preserved here for posterity!!!)

The Federal Aviation Administration said on Monday its investigators are trying to sort through a bizarre series of events that allowed a 300-pound (135 kg) pig to fly first-class aboard a nonstop US Airways flight from Philadelphia to Seattle.? The pig boarded US Airways Flight 107 on Oct. 17 with its two women owners and 198 other human passengers, and slept for most of the six-hour flight.

But the animal went hog wild as the Boeing 757 taxied to the terminal in Seattle. The squealing beast ran through the plane, discharging feces as it went, and tried to get into the cockpit before taking refuge in the aircraft's food galley. The pig was last seen being hauled off the plane and into an airport elevator by its two owners and another passenger.

``It will not happen again,'' promised US Airways spokesman David Castelveter.? FAA investigators were expected to examine the flight's passenger list and interview every crew member on board the plane. ``We'd like to know how a 300-pound pig flew first class,'' said FAA spokesman Jim Peters. ``We're looking into all aspects -- safety and compliance and sanitation. We want to know what the company's animal policy is.''

The Philadelphia Daily News, which first reported the strange tale, said the owners got permission to take their unruly pet aboard the flight by producing a doctor's note that described the pig as a 13-pound (5.8 kg) "service animal,'' like a seeing-eye dog. They also bought the pig a ticket.?At first, flight attendants tried to stow the pig in the rear of the plane but found that it blocked an emergency exit. So they opted to wedge the animal between seats 1A and 1C in the first-class section instead.

US Airways said it will allow passengers to board with dogs, cats and birds as free baggage, but only if the animals are small enough to fit under a seat in a container. There are exceptions for larger canines that serve as guide dogs for the blind, however.

Updated : November 29, 2000

USAirways did nothing wrong when it allowed a pig to fly first class from Philadelphia to Seattle in October, the Federal Aviation Administration found. Maria Tirotta Andrews, the pig?s owner, brought the 300-pound Vietnamese pot-bellied pig named Charlotte onto the Boeing 757 on Oct. 17, saying it was a therapeutic companion pet. ?USAirways and its personnel acted in a reasonable and thoughtful manner, based on a legitimate request to transport a qualified individual with a disability and her service animal,? said FAA spokesman Jim Peters. Andrews said she has a heart condition so severe that she needs the companionship of her pig to relieve stress.>>?

[This message was edited by M. O'Connor on Oct. 15, 2001 at 11:59 AM.]

elizabeth

Oct. 15, 2001, 09:36 AM

Yes, yes, yes, yes! I KNEW there was an incident with a pig on a plane!!

So we can put a federal marshall and a pig on every plane!

Magnolia

Oct. 15, 2001, 10:18 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> The squealing beast ran through the plane, discharging feces as it went, and tried to get into the cockpit before taking refuge in the aircraft's food galley. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The pig could probably smell the bacon sizzling for the in-flight meals... If they would just serve soy-bacon, our pork based friends would not get so upset on flights.

The witchy witch witch of south central NC.

vineyridge

Oct. 15, 2001, 10:46 AM

The pig idea I love. Especially when you consider that the Indian mutiny of the 1840's (?) was brought about because the native soldiers of the Brits thought their musket cartridges had been greased with lard or suet--the lard upset the Muslims and the suet upset the Hindus. All along it was mutton tallow. But the resulting religious fracas resulted in the Black Hole of Calcutta.

Perhaps the new symbol of American Airlines could be the flying pig.

vineyridge

Oct. 15, 2001, 10:49 AM

The Taliban has offered to turn OBL over to a neutral country. We have rejected that offer and negotiations out of hand.

How will our response play in the Muslim world?

It certainly seems like a stupid reaction on our part to me. We are, after all, engaged just as much in a propaganda war as a fighting one.

HeyYouNags

Oct. 15, 2001, 11:33 AM

Heard some interesting opinions on an NPR talk show this a.m. A couple of Middle East / Central Asian scholars were the guests. They sounded like they were also from the region.

One talked about certain Central Asian sects who have two central codes - one of hospitality, and one of revenge. He said that their code of hospitality meant that Bin Laden was viewed as a guest, and it would be a violation of their beliefs to turn a guest over.

The scarier aspect, of course, was revenge. He described their code of revenge as "bounded by neither time nor space". That meant there was no time limit on seeking revenge - if it took 20 years, so be it. His larger point was the need to understand the philosophies of these areas, in order to find a solution to terrorism.

The other guest noted that since none of the suicide bomber/suspects actually was Afghani, it made some countries or individuals far less sympathetic to our bombing that country.

Very complex cultural issues at work there, huh?

Snowbird

Oct. 15, 2001, 02:17 PM

Is it not so that if you give protection to any criminal culprit it is considered a crime, is it not?

Philsophical differences go both ways. However, when you erase the rhetoric and get down to the base what they are really saying is give up on Israel if you want us to help you. Now, I can understand that with Arabic peoples bargaining is a way of life and I suppose we are at the bargain stage.

However, at some point we will get to the bottom line. What then?

So I think we should hold the line and not play the game that will lead us down the road to being forced to give up a friend who is innocent of any crime for a terrorist who brags that we deserve what we got.

I read that in the area they are even claiming that Israel did the hijacking of the planes just to make Islam look bad.

So where would you draw the line? Where is that point beyond which reasonable people will not compromise?

Oct. 15, 2001, 02:40 PM

Snowbird - very, very good point.

I'm on another board on which some posters appear to take the POV that the U.S. must do all the compromising and all the understanding of other cultures.

Or the other cultures won't like us.

IMO,it goes both ways.

Of course, I'm Scots-Irish & assorted feudin' northern European heritage - we don't forgive and we never forget. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Velvet

Oct. 15, 2001, 02:43 PM

Did I miss a discussion!

All I have to say is that if anyone thinks dropping bombs over territory that already looks like it's been hit by an atom bomb is useful...well, I have some land for sale, it's in a nice country called Afghanistan. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Now, having all of the troops from all of the countries surround where he is, link hands (no, sorry, not to sing Kumbaya) and walk forward trapping him, giving him a sex change, reprogramming his mind so that he believes he is a TV evangalist (Christian) and a frustrated stock broker, and THEN sending him back to his playmates is a MUCH better idea! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl

Oct. 15, 2001, 07:21 PM

Magnolia - sorry for the slow response - and can you IMAGINE, the conversation has moved on from Twinkies in 24 hours. And I'm not sure if it was sugar high or specific Twinkie toxins which were blamed.
For anybodybody who knows the song often sung at protests -Or at least it was in the 80's and early 90's- "We are a gentle angry people, singing for our lives" - that was written in response to the verdict and rioting.
Now, back to our regularly schedule Pig Patrol Plan...

rockstar

Oct. 15, 2001, 09:48 PM

A rough day in DC.

There was having former Clinton national security advisor sandy berger tell us at a conference my organization ran today, "There is no doubt that we will be attacked again."

There was having two economic genuises, Gene Sperling (former Clinton economic advisor) and Bob Hormats (Goldman Sachs bigwig) tell us at the same congference that we're pretty much totally screwed in the economy department.

There was finding out that a kid I am friends with from school who interns for Daschle was actually in the mailroom opening mail with the other interns when the anthrax letter was found.

It's so depressing to look ahead and find it hard to see anything in the future except extremely difficult times for us all... individually and as a nation.

But hey, i got on c-span today, so everything is ok /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. Our conference was aired and I was passing the mike around during our panel q and a sessions. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif you're not anybody until you have been on c-span for two seconds, right /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif???

ughhh.

SLW

Oct. 16, 2001, 03:46 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by rockstar:
A rough day in DC.

"There is no doubt that we will be attacked again."

that we're pretty much totally screwed in the economy department.

There was finding out that a kid I am friends with from school who interns for Daschle was actually in the mailroom opening mail with the other interns when the anthrax letter was found.

It's so depressing to look ahead and find it hard to see anything in the future except extremely difficult times for us all... individually and as a nation.

But hey, i got on c-span today, so everything is ok /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. Our conference was aired and I was passing the mike around during our panel q and a sessions. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif you're not anybody until you have been on c-span for two seconds, right /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif???

ughhh.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rockstar,

Hang in there! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif An additional attack is certainly possible however I sense that "ordinary" American is paying attention to things now, more than ever before and "we" might be able to stop something before it reaches it's intended goal.

While the antrax is bothersome more people died yesterday from heart disease, cancer and auto wrecks than antrax, and that will happen again today. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif It seems to me, the media and politicians are being targeted with the contaminated letters because it guarantees "air time" which plays right into the hands of the domestic, or foreign, people sending the letters. Do be careful but don't play into panic.

C-Span, way to go! I admit, some nights when sleep escapes me I have been known to turn on C-Span.

Be safe! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

How is the clean up and repair going at the Pentagon? That isn't on the media's radar screen anymore and I'd like to know.

SLW

DMK

Oct. 16, 2001, 07:59 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> While the antrax is bothersome more people died yesterday from heart disease, cancer and auto wrecks than antrax, and that will happen again today. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No kidding... In fact, more people probably died as a result of a highly overworked, straining-at-the-seams 911 system. Scary times indeed.

HYN - re the "economic" impact of pork and mother cow. Harris' conclusion is that pork is - worldwide - a very desired source of food, because it is extremely efficient (it has a very high yield of protein/calories, with minimal intake of calories that would be competing with human food sources). In fact about the only place swine does not do well at all is in desert lands. So in 50 words or less, pork became a taboo in a part of theworld where raising them would have actually been a drain on resources rather than a benefit to the population.

As for cattle and India, his theory is that the least possible value a cow could have would be as meat. As a "sacred" animal, she provides labor (pulling a plow), milk (food) and fertilizer and fuel for fires (manure). Additionally, she reproduces all of these things (calves). Also, she is generally left to forage for food, and is basically not fed anything that could otherwise be fed to a human (and certainly not enough to make her a viable source of protien/calories), therefore increasing her yield per pound of food. His conclusion was that eating all the cattle in India would feed a nation for a day and starve them for a lifetime.

Very interesting stuff, and I think it rings true since these are results that more primitive populations could quickly discern for themselves.

hobson

Oct. 16, 2001, 08:19 AM

All very interesting stuff. One of the important features of the world's great religions is their conservative nature--which is to say, they really do a good job when it comes to preventing economic evolution/transformation that outstrips the local resources' ability to sustain new systems.

But this particular talent of conservative religion is limited to pre-modern, pre-industrialized culture. When modernization crashes into the culture, the old religions are really at a loss, and that's where you get fundamentalism, as the devout adherents cling desperately to a structure that appears to make sense in the face of what they perceive as cultural annihilation.

brilyntrip

Oct. 16, 2001, 08:30 AM

Now I have heard everything !! but pigs on board would be a detracter from islamic terrorists wouldn't it !

M. O'Connor

Oct. 16, 2001, 08:33 AM

Was listening to Diane Rheim a bit ago...had all sorts of public health/bio-gurus on the program...I kept wanting to pick up the phone and say "BUT! What about.....????" Of course, I was too busy forking the next pile into the manure tub, and getting on with normal life by hurrying through chores so I could ride to interrupt myself (besides, I'd be sitting there all hour just trying to get through, right?)....so I'll pose part of what I have been wondering to you, our resident insurance expert....

....here's the thing...We are lucky enough to have health insurance, "At The Moment," through my husband's small business, which he owns with two partners, one of whom is single and has opted not to have health coverage, the other of whom gets health coverage through his wife's employent with the phone company--this benefit is of greater value to us (family w/two children) than to the others, so we get to pay for it out of out income, not off the top of company profits...however, each time we've had to renew our policy, we've had to cut back on the plan (not to mention change providers once) to negotiate the whopping price increases in order to maintain any coverage at all...we are now down to bare bones HMO...generic prescriptions or a huge co-pay, big deductible on hospitalizations....etc....not complaining, just illustrating what I think is probably not an unusual situation for someone in our income bracket, which I guess is pretty average...now....

How will the (for profit for the most part) health care "industry" respond to the new situations presented by large numbers of people at everyday jobs (postal workers, media workers, and their surrounds) having to be tested for all sorts of pathogens...never mind, how will it respond when asked to cough up the dough for all the medications (I don't imagine there is anything available along the lines of generic Cipro?) I can see it coming now... next year the insurance industry's "perceived" risk of bioterrorism will drive the price of health insurance out of sight...those of us who have been hanging on to their health coverage by a fingernail will be forced to drop it...

Not to mention the huge portion of the uninsured or underinsured that avoids going to the doctor till the situation has become acute....I just haven't heard any discussion of the practical effects this will all have on a problem that is already out of hand....???

Who else besides me sees this as a problem....?

M. O'Connor

Oct. 16, 2001, 08:35 AM

<<Welll Mary --Now I have heard everything !! but pigs on board would be a detracter from islamic terrorists wouldn't it !>>

Nah--we already concluded it would only deter those who are truly devout--the mean ones would carry on with their evil ways.

halfhalt

Oct. 16, 2001, 08:44 AM

re the Taliban's offer to turn OBL to a neutral country?

DMK

Oct. 16, 2001, 10:57 AM

ooooh, M.O'C - just full of interesting dilemnas today, aren't we? /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

In all probability your insurance rates for next year are already set in stone. You may not know them yet, but the final details are being completed between carriers and state regulators.

Generally most carriers file their rates for the following year, usually in the 3rd quarter, hoping to have them approved by early in the 4th quarter. This is because the great bulk of business renews in January, and renewal rates need to be presented by November.

Now here is the tricky part. If I go through the long and complex process of developing a rate filing to meet both the company's revenue target and the state's regulations (most states must approve, or at least have on record, a company's projected rates and some details about underwriting), I generally have to start in June. But all insurers suffer from a thing called "lag" which basically means I get all revenue up front (called premium), but expenses (claims) take months to trickle in (and must be applied to the month services were rendered). This means that in June of 2001, if I was developing 2002 rates, I would have to use the expenses/trends of 2000 to develop my rates - 2000 data is the only data that is complete, because the data has no "lag" in it. Oh I can look at the first half of 2001 and analyze it (and do), but it is missing a LOT of expenses and even some revenue. So here we are, trying to project what is going to happen to expenses in 2002 based on what happened in 2000. Funky way to run a business, eh?

Now it isn't all that happenstance - you can rely on medical economic forecasts and actuarial trends (aka withcraft and foretelling") to adjust your rates upward or downward according to what you think may happen, but these things have to be independently verified, and can't be entirely in-house.

So the quick answer is in all probability this will not affect your 2002 rates - they are done, and states generally require really exceptional circumstances to approve revised rates. As a side note, the reason rates have escalated so sharply in the last few years was due to that lag effect. In the early 90's, medical inflation was at an all time low, so carriers had minimal increases or even undercut their competitors, increased benefits and so on, while competing for market share. Then medical inflation started upward, led primarily by pharmacy costs. Due to the lag effect, it was more or less not reflected in the rates, and insurers get way behind the 8 ball - nothing like betting on a 3% increase in revenue for the next 12 months, then finding out that expenses had been increasing by 10% for the last 18 months, and are likely to keep doing so. By the time you can correct it, you have been shortselling your product for 36 months. This is considered "Not Good" in any business...

But on to what I think will happen... and boy, is this a shot in the dark. First of all, expenses such as screenings due to workplace hazards are not now, nor have they ever been the domain of health insurers. This is covered under workman's compensation. Additionally, I would bet as we speak, whoever insured those press workers in FL and NY is subrogating against the workman's comp carrier, since they can probably make a VERY good case that the disease was contracted primarily due to the workplace (I think that one clearly falls in the "uh, duh" category). So health insurers have dodged the bullet to a certain extent. They do have a small problem in that most of their pharmacy systems have no way of discriminating between types of drugs or purposem of such drugs. For instance while their contracts generally exclude antibiotics prescribed by dentists, they have no real way of enforcing that - same goes for painkillers from worker's comp claims. They can manage specific cases that are flagged, but a lot more goes through on the premise that it costs more to administer the exclusion than to pay for it.

The thought of worker's comp insurance going up is scary - that already eats a huge hole out of business pockets, and I believe worker's comp has a lot more latitude for rating for specific risk than health insurers do. Could be quite a challenge for them to define the risk though...

Undoubtedly health and worker's comp carriers will be closely evaluating their claims for the 3rd/4th quarters of this year, and attempting to make some order/projections out of it, but obviously this is whole new turf for actuaries (something they truly hate).

As for the uninsured, we do pay their costs - if not through our tax dollars going to support public hospitals, then through the increased DSH (disproportionate share) funding that makes up a portion of Medicare funding (some of the write off of uninsured costs shows up in the Medicare payment system). In fact one wonders if we just paid for 'em up front, before they end up in the hospital, if we may not end up paying less? But that is a thought for a whole 'nuther thread...

Now did you just learn more about health insurance economics than you ever wanted to know? /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

M. O'Connor

Oct. 16, 2001, 12:03 PM

Um....give me a minute to make a big long cup of tea, take my contacts out so I can peer at the screen better and digest all that.....

(Snowbird, pt, hobson, all y'all, help me out here!)

Duffy

Oct. 16, 2001, 12:12 PM

Hehe M O'Connor...Health insurance was never my thing (hated it), but what DMK is saying, methinks /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif , is that your health insurance premiums for this next year have already been decided. Nothing that has happened over the past months will affect it for, say, what?, another year or so? /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Also, since the anthrax, etc., at least so far, seems to be orginating in the workplace, then the claims from such would be covered from workers compensation liability insurance. I'm sure that made SO much sense, right!?!?! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Linny

Oct. 16, 2001, 02:25 PM

Vineyridge, I love the word "fracas." It's just not used enough.

BEQS clique. With elbows in!

DMK

Oct. 16, 2001, 05:52 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Duffy:
Hehe M O'Connor...Health insurance was never my thing (hated it), but what DMK is saying, methinks /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif , is that your health insurance premiums for this next year have already been decided. Nothing that has happened over the past months will affect it for, say, what?, another year or so? /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Also, since the anthrax, etc., at least so far, seems to be orginating in the workplace, then the claims from such would be covered from workers compensation liability insurance. I'm sure that made SO much sense, right!?!?! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But Duffy - you only get the big bucks if you can explain it in 3000 words or MORE!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Snowbird

Oct. 16, 2001, 06:05 PM

OH! my that is another world. I find it hard to comprehend because while I read the small print on tickets I cannot make myself read an insurance policy.

I understand the logic that when they average everything out the healthy people make up for those who get sick, but I just can't fathom why the healthy ones should be penalized by way of integrity.

I guess the thing is after the fact when the Insurance Companies find out how much they had to pay out for "whatever" they will just bump up the premiums to repay themselves the losses.

So why don't we insure ourselves? I have often thought that if I put the price of my car insurance in a separate account, I would have more than enough money to pay any claims.

It was like when we had our barn fire years ago, the insurance premium to cover the barn went up enough per year to cover what it cost to pay our claim in I think it was 8 years.

vineyridge

Oct. 16, 2001, 06:17 PM

Bush says "No" (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/15/international/15PREX.html?searchpv=past7days)

Re health insurance--

Doesn't anyone think it's odd that we all know the private insurance system sucks, that we are the only Western/industrialized nation in the WORLD that doesn't guarantee health care to all its citizens, and yet we don't even consider the alternatives to what we have.

On the same lines, we are the only industrialized nation in the West to cling to capital punishment. Yet we have one of the highest crime rates in the world.

Is there some strange disconnect in our thinking processes?

DMK

Oct. 16, 2001, 08:05 PM

Vineyridge - here's some stats you can noodle over...

USA
IMR is 7 (IMR = infant mortality rate)
Life expectancy is 77
Health Expenditure as % of GDP is 14
Actual $$ per person is $4,090

in contrast...

Japan
IMR is 4
life expectancy is 80.3
health expenditures as a % of GDP is 7.2
Actual expenditure per person is $1,741

and for giggles....

Malaysia
IMR is 10
life expectency is 72
health expenditures as a percent of GDP is Zippo

So best as I can tell, we spend a lot more to die earlier than people who spend a lot less, and we get to live a little bit longer than those who have not even catagorized how little they spend on health care.

Snowbird - you can self insure - MSA's are part of Medicare, and have been for a few years - part of the BBA '97 act...

Everythingbutwings

Oct. 17, 2001, 04:26 AM

CNN says he died (http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/10/17/israel.zeevi/index.html)

halfhalt

Oct. 17, 2001, 07:33 AM

and thanks, DMK, for those stats - i think if more US citizens knew the numbers (especially those high infant mortality figures) compared with other countries in the "developed" and "undeveloped" world, attitudes might change.....maybe.

SLW

Oct. 17, 2001, 07:42 AM

More rates to look at. In the USA it appears we have made great progress DECREASING the IMR since the 1950's in spite of more drug and alcohol abuse by pregnant mothers. I left school district work as the second wave of crack baby's became "of age" so I was surprised to see the low number.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/hus98t23.htm

Some Canadian proviences have very high IMR stats....

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/People/Health/health21.htm

And for country's IMR rankings look at this link. It puts things into perspective.

http://www.bartleby.com/151/a28.html

SLW

HeyYouNags

Oct. 17, 2001, 07:46 AM

But isn't one of the main hang-ups health care reform stalls in the U.S. is because any meaningful reform will have to include discussion of health care rationing? For example, we would have to talk about who could receive some of the more expensive procedures, like organ transplants. Or how much we were willing to spend when someone's fertility treatment results in the birth of 7 or 8 critically premature infants.

Even liberal tree-hugging me has trouble with that one. In theory, I could set limits. But if it were my elderly parents being told "no", things would look a little different.

Anyone know how the Japanese are able to control costs?

halfhalt

Oct. 17, 2001, 07:57 AM

or at world rates, of course they're not. But even with those stats (which does show a decline in us rates to 6.8), most western european countries are between 4 and 5, and canada is at 5 (yes, some provinces are higher but that is because of some regions being poorer than others, not because they have privatized medicine)...can the us really claim their medical system works better? are they satisfied with that rate of infant death?

oh and by the way, Cuba is just over 7 despite the prolonged period of US embargo....

Pixie Dust

Oct. 17, 2001, 08:06 AM

that Japan spends less on health care because of the way they live. The traditional Japanese diet is mostly rice, vegetables and fish and they also use alternative medicine for chronic conditions. In the last 10 or 20 years, many Japanese have adopted a more "western" diet, which consists of lots of Montana steaks, and their rates of heart disease have risen quite a bit.
Betsy (in Md.) who also likes tofu ....not like a granola health girl, but like a Japanese snack. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DMK

Oct. 17, 2001, 08:07 AM

SLW - nobody is arguing that starving countries have a higher IMR than the US - that might possibly fall into the "no duh" category. And nobody - least of all me - is arguing that this is not a great country. In fact I would venture to suggest that our system of free market medicine has helped with a lot of great advances in research.

Conversely, I do not believe that anyone should hold our health stats up to the rest of the developed world as superior in any way, as that flies in the face of logic (never mind provinces in Canada, try suburbs in Detroit and the Ozarks - EVERY country has variations, but as long as the same sampling logic is applied universally, the variations are equal). Nor should we solely take claim for all the great advances in medicine as a result of our free market system (which if you understand health care delivery, is clearly not so free market).

Our system of health care is clearly unhealthy in every possible aspect of the system. I doubt you will find too many people who are in the field to disagree with that statement. Nobody has any clue how to fix it to even the partial satisfaction of most of the parties, and most - myself included - are unsure about socialized medicine as a workable aspect for this nation. Still, Houston, we have a problem...

Interestingly enough, that decline in IMR has been almost the sole reason the average age life expectancy has "increased". Take away IMR deaths and look at the life expectancy, and you will find that we do not live that much longer than we did 75 years ago. Interesting considering how much we spend on trying to live longer.

As for rationing health care, it is indeed an uncomfortable thought, but to be quite honest, right now every American has their health care rationed. For the uninsured, the limits are obvious, for the insured, there are maximums on lifetime or annual coverage, limits on procedures and drugs, certain cutting edge care (experimental) is rarely covered, many optional procedures (cosmetic) are not covered and so on. They are just the limits we are familiar with, rather than the unknown limits.

OK - back to the real subject before Erin comes and beats this post with a big stick /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Pixie Dust

Oct. 17, 2001, 08:18 AM

No one beats the U.S. when it comes to emergency care, trauma, etc., but when it comes to preventative care and chronic conditions....we need some improvement.

Betsy (in Md.)

Magnolia

Oct. 17, 2001, 08:33 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Anyone know how the Japanese are able to control costs? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Easy, they don't eat a double whopper with cheese, biggie fries, washed down with a 1/2 gallon of coke for lunch...

I am also amazed at how many people don't exercise in this country, especially young people. I'm an overweight person - mainly cause I wash my veggie burger down with a 1/2 gallon of coke... and I am shocked by how many "normal" people can't keep up with me on a hike, or a bike ride. Even the young people I'm in school with don't exercise - then they smoke and never eat veggies - a recipe for heart disease and diabetes.

The witchy witch witch of south central NC.

vineyridge

Oct. 17, 2001, 09:01 AM

I'd be riding to the doctor.

How about health department clinics for most things, and universal single pay basic and preventative care, including mental, dental and vision, paid for out of employment (SS type) tax dollars, with government funding for the working poor and the unemployed and retired? With an annual maximum per individual?

Private catastrophic insurance (like current cancer and nursing home insurance) for those who can afford it? So we can continue to ride our horses, ski, and play sports.

Home health care for the aged. Hospice care for the dying.

Education, so we can all understand that one human life is not worth infinite cost--that death is a part of life, not to be feared. That humans don't have the right to life at the expense of the community. Courses in death and dying, parenting, and basic health in all high schools. This can be paid for by de-emphasizing contact sports.

Health care is already rationed for many Americans simply because of the cost.

I have a bone to pick with the system because I'm personally uninsurable except in the State's high risk pool--and that would cost 4 grand or so a year.

Saw last night on the news projections of a 15 percent increase in insurance costs for large companies, and up to doubling for small employers.

The system really is broke,just like the USET.

(Notice horses mentioned thrice in this post)

rockstar

Oct. 17, 2001, 10:37 AM

SLW...

Thank you!

But, it's hard to keep your head up when you know the people involved. And they just shut down all of capitol hill... all House and Senate offices.

Sirens are wizzing around every two seconds.

I'm not panicked... I can't be when there's not a single thing I can do. But I am damn concerned and scared.

halfhalt

Oct. 17, 2001, 11:21 AM

It's 3.5, almost half of the US rate. That's impressive.

Magnolia

Oct. 17, 2001, 11:38 AM

I think the reason that the US has high infant mortality rates compared to Sweden etc. is because it has some high poverty rates, and even if you aren't impoverished, it doesn't necessarily mean you can afford health care.
If you don't have insurance and can barely afford food, rent and transportation, you may not be able to afford prenatal care. There are many many people in this country barely getting by, but not so poor as to qualify for medicare. They work in stores, restaurants, clean houses and motels and work other low paying jobs. In Sweden, the govt. provides them health care, but in the US, it comes out of their pocket (if they can afford it).

There really aren't easy solutions - we either need to stay status quo, and hope people will move up the latter, require employers to pay a living wage, or we need to cover these "social" costs as a society. Basically, we are getting away with paying people less than they need to survive, and sooner or later, we need to make that up, be it thru higher medical costs because of high numbers of people not being able to pay bills, higher taxes, or higher prices for goods and services that underpaid people provide (or we just need to accept the social problems like high rates of infant mortality as a cost of our "system").

The witchy witch witch of south central NC.

hobson

Oct. 17, 2001, 12:22 PM

Karen Armstrong is on the NPR show Fresh Air RIGHT NOW! She is a completely brilliant scholar of religion, and is talking about Qutb and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. Very good! To tune in on your 'puter, go to WHYY here:

http://www.whyy.org/91FM/live.html

Some public radio stations air Fresh Air twice a day - try to catch it later if you can't listen now, or check out the archived NPR shows on their web site for other Armstrong appearances on Fresh Air.

Whoops, just realized that this might be an old show that WHYY is airing now - they are doing a membership drive, so if you are not in the Philly area, you may be getting a different Fresh Air.

M. O'Connor

Oct. 17, 2001, 12:42 PM

...but, how will our "system" of health care function if such exposures become commonplace? It's pretty clear that early treatment is very desirable...but the way the system is set up, waiting till a condition is advanced and then seeking ER care is the common practice for the uninsured, and for the insured, "unnecessary" care is discouraged by most HMO plans, where "better safe than sorry" type logic does not seem to apply! Also, I'm wondering if that pesky formulary of mine includes Cipro on its list...

Magnolia

Oct. 17, 2001, 01:04 PM

Our NPR station in Charlotte is doing a fund drive right now. Every morning this week I am awakened by "If we can just get 10 pledges in the next 10 minutes, we'll be so happy!" "OOOOOOOooooo, now we only need 8 more, keep calling in!" "Only 3 minutes left, that's 2 calls a minute, c'mon, you can do it".

Maybe we can have NPR take over the afghan radio station. They'll surrender after listening to one day of the fund drive....

The witchy witch witch of south central NC.

halfhalt

Oct. 17, 2001, 02:48 PM

you're right, poverty does prevent people from getting adequate prenatal care - canada is a poorer country than the usa but we have a lower rate because we don't have private medical insurance. So it puzzles me why the us hangs on to that system, despite the evidence of the harm it does - not to the rich, but to the poor. It's not because private medical insurance is cheaper, because it's not....

Magnolia

Oct. 17, 2001, 02:57 PM

I think it is the whole free market thing. I think most americans feel our government is very incompetant and inefficient at providing services, and would rather rely on competition between corporations to ensure quality service than the government... and there is a lot of fear of "socialism" in this country. Any attempt to help the poor - living wages, gvt healthcare etc. is seen as socialism, which is a threat to the free market, and hence, democracy. Which I think stinks, but then again, I complain about taxes being too high....

The witchy witch witch of south central NC.

SLW

Oct. 17, 2001, 05:05 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by DMK:

Our system of health care is clearly unhealthy in every possible aspect of the system. I doubt you will find too many people who are in the field to disagree with that statement. Nobody has any clue how to fix it to even the partial satisfaction of most of the parties, and most - myself included - are unsure about socialized medicine as a workable aspect for this nation. Still, Houston, we have a problem...

As for rationing health care, it is indeed an uncomfortable thought, but to be quite honest, right now every American has their health care rationed. For the uninsured, the limits are obvious, for the insured, there are maximums on lifetime or annual coverage, limits on procedures and drugs, certain cutting edge care (experimental) is rarely covered, many optional procedures (cosmetic) are not covered and so on. They are just the limits we are familiar with, rather than the unknown limits.

OK - back to the real subject before Erin comes and beats this post with a big stick /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

DMK,

This link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/10/business/10MEDI.html , does explain one reason why our system is unhealthy. Follow the money, but you already know that! I have not seen a system of socialized medicine that I could support. Do you have experience or links that would shed more light on the subject? I'm only familiar with the Canadian system.

You are right on about rationed health care. It does already exist. My mother was lucky, her experimental chemotherapy was approved by the insurance company. Even with a generous health care plan my parents spent $60,000, out of pocket, for her treatment over a course of 3 years.

SLW- dodging Erins stick! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Erin

Oct. 17, 2001, 06:05 PM

Ahem...

Can we get back to the original off-topic topic please? /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Snowbird

Oct. 17, 2001, 08:42 PM

It's become a ladies tea party and the conversation drifts. Wouldn't you rather we played nice than were calling each other awful things at war?

There really is sort of a link because we're worried about all the anthrax costs related to the terrorist attacks. It also reflect the fact that since war has been declared the HMO can get off the hook with the act of war exemption, if they dare.

And, how much more will insurance cost next year when they figure in all the costs from these terrorist attacks. Really it's not really off course, the horse is just wandering a little around the corners.

M. O'Connor

Oct. 18, 2001, 06:05 AM

Just a latteral drift---perhaps some intentional counter-bending has been added into the mix, but there is a logic to the progression...didn't I, in my original question to DMK about the health insurance issue, include the information that a band-aid from the ER in Ocala ended up costing well over $200, which my insurance company paid, and I am expected to pay a $50 co-pay on top of that??? Horse related because Anna cut her finger on a nameplate on a borrowed chain leadline at HITS-----! Such an off kilter price for a band aid, would certainly lead one to wonder how medication for anthrax might be viewed by the ins industry, and we all know how "perceived" risk (different in my mind than "actual, common-sense applied" risk) is viewed by ins companies as a license to raise rates through the roof....health insurance is hard to get in the horse industry---horse related, there you are bingo, on-topic! I rest my case.

M. O'Connor

Oct. 18, 2001, 06:07 AM

we ended up at the ER because the EMT at the show thought the end of my poor Anna's finger might have been crushed off, need stitches, etc....but the nurses just mushed it back together with gauze and a bandaid.

Pixie Dust

Oct. 18, 2001, 06:44 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
It's become a ladies tea party and the conversation drifts. Wouldn't you rather we played nice than were calling each other awful things at war?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know much about the Canadian health care system, but I'm betting that if I were poor, I'd prefer Canada's to the U.S.'s.

Speaking of Canada, since the U.S. is SO scared of people smoking Hemp and getting tummy aches, why don't you Canadians, with your wonderful farmland and progressive ideas start developing Hemp oil cars! Hey you could make a lotta money too.

I mean part of the U.S.'s problem is our dependence on foreign oil right??? Imagine if all our oil could be grown right here! Yeah, yeah yeah, I'm sure there could be some snags, but if we could put a man on the moon, then we can create hemp oil cars right?

Betsy (in Md.) /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

hobson

Oct. 18, 2001, 07:01 AM

Well, bgoosewood, that would only work if the oil companies do not currently hold the patents for hemp-oil fuel technology, as they do with clean fuel-cell patents, which they will not make available to industry.

Pixie Dust

Oct. 18, 2001, 07:04 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by hobson:
Well, bgoosewood, that would only work if the oil companies do not currently hold the patents for hemp-oil fuel technology, as they do with clean fuel-cell patents, which they will not make available to industry.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

DAG
I knew there was something I was missing!
BIG OIL

vineyridge

Oct. 18, 2001, 07:31 AM

bought and paid for the Bushes generations ago. The former chairman of Exxon and one of Senior's best friends is Ambassador to Great Britain. Both Bush and Cheney have been oilmen.

We've known about soy diesel for fifteen years, and corn gas. They are more expensive than oil but only because the technology is relatively new.

Big Oil probably owns Canada too.

We'll just have to wait for the Japanese to create the technology to free us from Big Oil.

Did you see Doonesbury Sunday?

DMK

Oct. 18, 2001, 08:17 AM

M.O'C - very clever - horse related AND related to the on-the-topic "Off topic" topic /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Actually hospital billing is a creative sort of thing. All insurance carriers have contracted rates with their participating hospitals, and generally pay a flat rate, depending on severity of the case, for ER admissions, but it is unreasonable to expect a hospital to have a billing system that can handle hundreds of variations on billing (these case rates are a lot like snowflakes - you never see two the same /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ). So they just bill something called "Reasonable & Customary" rates, which are generally derived from national rate tables (HIAA or MDR, in case you cared /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ). Here's the thing though - since NOBODY pays 100% of R&C, that number is sort of artificially high. The insurer then calculates how much they are supposed to pay, and you end up with a statement that said you paid $50, the insurer paid $200 bucks and there is $58,067 left unpaid, which then confuses the hell out of you and makes you run for the family lawyer or stop answering your phones. In truth, nobody expects anyone to pay $58,067...

Now when you go to a hospital that the insurer does not have in its network, the hospital sends that full R&C bill to the insurer (or to you, and you promptly pass out), who generally only pays 70-80% of it, and generally the hospital accepts that amount. They then write off the 20-30% and the write off goes into calculating their DSH share of their Medicare payment. Basically that write off helps increase the payment from Medicare, which of course, comes out of our tax dollars. Fun, eh?

As for anthrax or other bioterrorism issues, if it became a widespread threat I do see a concerted effort by our (not strong) public health system to address that issue, simply because there are some things that you cannot let go unaddressed. Basically, it would be far more damaging to the economy to lose any portion of the workforce (see Dengue Fever in Central America, Carribean Islands), than it would be to cover the cost of treating the ill people. And of course, once the government says it will treat the uninsured population it's hard for them to a) not subsidize the insurers/doctors who are treating the insured folks or b) not treat them themselves.

Of course, you already knew that both increased our tax dollars and/or our premiums...

Magnolia

Oct. 18, 2001, 09:32 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> We've known about soy diesel for fifteen years, and corn gas <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heehee, that sounds like a vegetarian sickness!

"Doctor, I have a bad case of the corn gas." "Well, the only treatment your HMO covers is soy diesel"

The witchy witch witch of south central NC.

M. O'Connor

Oct. 18, 2001, 02:23 PM

No way!!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

vineyridge

Oct. 18, 2001, 05:51 PM

I needed some stitches when my dog accidentally slashed my wrist. I went to the ER since it was Saturday.

Very uncomplicated cut that needed eight stitches. The bill for ER and doctor was eleven hundred dollars. But I found that I could negotiate with the hospital and got the bill cut down by about 30%. The doctor bill goes through a different biller, and they won't talk about a reduction.

Remember that I'm uninsurable, so I don't have the options that insurance companies have to negotiate a reasonable charge for a fairly simple service.

Eleven hundred dollars for one cut needing eight stitches is absurd. What's funny is that the cut was on the back of my wrist, and the ER people were wondering if I had done it myself. On the back of the wrist? That would be dumb.

If biological warfare stays in the "homeland", the whole health provision system will be under a huge amount of stress, and the old ways of rationing care just won't work. IMHO, of course.

M. O'Connor

Oct. 18, 2001, 06:45 PM

am only on page 16 and it is really spooky reading....

Snowbird

Oct. 18, 2001, 08:30 PM

I must tell you all that my final mission is this one. Did you know that you don't need oil at all? Did you know that there is a generator which will produce electricity for a community and it runs on manure?

Do you realize that if we all cooperated it is possible to have electric generators run by the manure from our horses and then have electricity to sell?

There were test generators built years ago, before you were born when we all stood in line at the gas stations because of the gas shortage. They ran a generator for a town of 1200 homes all fueled by cow manure, and horse manure has even more methane.

Now, if we converted the world into thinking manure we wouldn't need to buy any oil from anyone and all that black stuff would stay in the ground. If those middle east countries didn't feel they had money faucet to turn on whenever they wanted, they might be compelled to develop economic policies that would help their people.

And, just project the benfit to the horse world! No longer would a horse be valuable because of how high, or how wide or even how fast it was. Imagine a world where horses were valued by the amount of manure they produced per day. No more starving horses ever again! No more killing them for meat!

A simple solution to end the rule of big oil, make the horses happy and have free elctricity. Could you dream of more?

M. O'Connor

Oct. 19, 2001, 03:56 AM

Names, places, dates....*Which gas shortage? What town? Where can one obtain such a generator? (*The one in '73?-ish where I got to stay the weekends at my trainer's barn for upwards of a year because my parents could only fill the gas tank so often and no more? I kind of enjoyed that one....)

Magnolia

Oct. 19, 2001, 05:35 AM

There is an Australian company that created a generator to convert hog waste to electricity. They pump in manure from the lagoons of hog waste, which is inceinerated, and somehow produces energy. They are focusing on NC. I'm not sure how far along their technology is or how effcient it is, but anything that cleans up hog waste and produces power is OK with me!

And it would be good to diversify our energy supply from being so based on fossil fuels. It isn't just environmental, it's an economic issue. I am very surprised our gas prices aren't thru the roof. We are just so dependent on one limited commodity that any kink in the line (ie, friction in the middle east) could darn near bankrupt us and our economy. If we had several viable sources (hemp, manure, solar) being worked on, we'd have a back up. I hear numbers regarding the war - a few billion to airports, a few billion for new vaccines, a few billion for this and that.... well, a few billion toward some research on alternative energies would be great to get us off of foreign oil - instead, (and Bill Clinton is as guilty as Bush) we continue to cut funding to alternative energy resource development, while giving way more money to fund oil exploration.

Well, how does this relate to the war? We wouldn't have to depend on a volatile area for a large portion of our economy. I can't believe that OPEC hasn't jacked up the oil prices, and what's to say that if we spend a bit too much time over there or say the wrong thing or bomb the wrong village that they won't....

The witchy witch witch of south central NC.

Inverness

Oct. 19, 2001, 08:13 AM

Danish plant converts hog waste into gas, water.(Brief Article)
Issue: Feb 15, 2000

A Danish firm is marketing a new "bio-plant" that can convert pig waste into water, gas and manure, saving farms from pollution problems and storage costs.

"Our system filters and refines usable elements in pig slurry, changing the animals' stinking excreta into water, gas energy and fertilizer manure," says managing director Poul Ejnar Rasmussen of Bioscan, the firm manufacturing the slurry separator system.

"The system does away with the need for slurry tanks and the smell they cause, piping off recyclable elements in the slurry for further use," Rasmussen says.

Bioscan's slurry plant is currently undergoing tests in central Denmark, tapping excreta from some 20,000 pigs, providing energy to a local electricity works and heating to five farms, and water of drinking quality.

Interest from abroad has been considerable, and plants are to be set up in Japan and the United States next year, Rasmussen says.

--@griculture [Online.sup.TM]

www.agriculture.com (http://www.agriculture.com)

COPYRIGHT 2000 Meredith Corporation

COPYRIGHT 2000 Gale Group

"The optimist fell ten stories,
And at each window bar,
He shouted to the folks inside,
'Doing alright so far!'"

--Anonymous

Everythingbutwings

Oct. 19, 2001, 10:29 AM

100 Questions and Answers about Arab Americans (http://www.freep.com/jobspage/arabs.htm)

/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I need a keeper! /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Magnolia

Oct. 19, 2001, 11:25 AM

Thanks- I didn't know there were other manufacturers of this system. What a great idea. I hope it catches on in the US. Our tanks for hog waste are actually open "ponds" which lead to huge environmental problems... especially when they flood. ewe.

The witchy witch witch of south central NC.

Snowbird

Oct. 20, 2001, 07:40 PM

Awhile back I had a pile of articles for the useful purposes of manure. With those are the details, I know it was a small town in the midwest and they provided the generators that used the cow manure. There also was a man who said he had altered an engine so that he could run a car on horse manure. There also was a company in California that used manure to remove paint toxins from the ground. And, in Japan they compress the manure and use it in blocks to insulate pipes. The neanderthal used it as fuel to start fires.

Did you know that all that grease that melts out of your hamburgers is collected and actually sells on the commodities market as gease. Surely, with the collective intelligence of horse people we can develop a process for a useful purpose of our end-product with this information.

I know that for purposes of farmland asessment if your farm product is manure you have an easy way to claim more acreage. If our manure was spread in the deserts we could turn them green again. YET, in this brilliant age of technology manure is carefully sealed in plastic bags and dumped in the land fill at our expense.

The peat bogs are almost gone and our manure can be processed to equal the values of peat moss, yet we just throw it away or spend money to compost it for no profit at all.

My other pet concern is alternate bedding. OK! there's straw but the rest of us use shavings. Now that the housing starts are down there is not very much lumber being cut and that means wood shavings prices will go up-and-up-and-up. So what are the options? If lumber stops being used for construction what will we do?

So we can lick the terrorists by not buying their oil, who's working on the alternate uses of natural products? Pumping it out of the ground is not the only solution, we could use alternate farm products as fuel instead of polluting with oil or even toxic batteries.

Where are all the bleeding heart liberals and tree huggers now when you need them? Every 3rd world country has lots of manure from their animals.

M. O'Connor

Oct. 21, 2001, 05:09 AM

NY Times: Look at Afghan/Pakistani tribe (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/21/international/asia/21PASH.html)

Magnolia

Oct. 21, 2001, 07:04 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Where are all the bleeding heart liberals and tree huggers now when you need them? Every 3rd world country has lots of manure from their animals.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Snowbird,
We try. We are told solar and wind energy will never work, that supplementing soil with manure isn't necessary with agri-chemicals and genetic engineering, people laugh at eco cars - we ask congress to raise the MPG on vehicles, and they back down because Detroit whines about the $$$$ it will cost. They cut grants to researchers studying solar power...

The good thing is is that we tree huggers are a persistant lot ~ but we get laughed at a lot. We get ignored. We have a real hard time competing with big oil and energy companies and "agribusiness". The funny thing is that when we get regular people on our side, we usually win. So if you want these good things, help out Sierra Club or other groups - sign their petitions, get on mailing lists etc. You needn't give money or support all of their causes. Also, you want the value of your manure to go up? Support organic farmers. Pay the extra $$$ for their fruits and veggies born of manure instead of chemicals.

Whoa, this is now really off-topic!

The witchy witch witch of south central NC.

Snowbird

Oct. 21, 2001, 11:07 AM

We tried to build a windmill here on the mountain where I'm sure there is enough wind to provide electricity for all of Morris County. I could not find an engineer who could tell me exactly what kind of a windmill I needed, and how much electricity it would produce if the wind was -- miles per hour. So we dumped the idea since it would cost about $25,000.

What I find a pity is that in the "olden" days every little backwater farmer seemed to know exactly what to do and how to build a windmill.

I am on your side, I favor the new cartridge system for the cars which I heard about 25 years ago that let you fill the tank with water and have oxygen as the exhaust fume.

I realize that would put a lot of service stations out of business but like the rest of us I am also sure they can learn a new trade besides pumping gasoline. I think it is really odd that we make out of corn I think a special additive to keep dowm emissions and we don't just adapt the cars to use that corn fuel completely.

I am like you, very opposed to special interests that control associations and keep them in the dark ages. I do believe there are no problems we can't solve if we are turned lose to get it done.