Ron wrote on Jun 21, 2007 7:43 AM:Yesterday, I got a lot to think about, but let me see if I can put what you said into some perspective. "Most Europeans think we're idiots on the healthcare front and cringe at the idea of being transferred here by there companies and thus being put at risk by our sub-par healthcare system." While I might agree with you, that European think were stupid on healthcare, don't they also think we stupid in a bunch of areas too? Kyoto, military, etc. But, if what you are saying is true, that they have a better system than our "sub-par", then why aren't more Americans, wealthy Americans going overseas to seek their superior care? Something in your logic does not add up. As to the French, in particular. I know a little something about the French view on this, as I work with many from a very large Euro multi-national, Schneidier Electric. I hear their complaints first hand about their own medical plans, and in particular, they complain mostly about the reimbursement issue. And they are the one's who tell me, when they can't secure the medical procedures, either at a reasonable cost, or they have to wait, they do go to others countries, including the US to find it. You see, I've heard their stories about symptoms that were not pursued, they had to wait, and by the time they did see a doctor, the disease had spread requiring even further medical treatment.

Concerned-1 wrote on Jun 21, 2007 7:56 AM:We need to get on with comprehensive immigration reform as proposed by the President, continue to send more troops to finish the job in Iraq, as proposed by the President, and support a successor for the President who will stay the course on all his policies, both domestic and international! I'm tired of seeing the letters of disagreement with the greatest leader this nation has ever had. If you don't like him, I suggest you renounce your citizenship and leave the country!

Pinky wrote on Jun 21, 2007 8:59 AM:Unity '08 - the new Third Party. It's not politics as usual… Unity08 is a diverse group of Americans who believe that neither of today’s parties reflects the aspirations, concerns or will of the majority of Americans. Both parties have polarized and alienated voters. Both are unduly influenced by single-issue groups. Both are excessively dominated by money. There is a better way… Unity08 is committed to presenting a third presidential ticket and platform – one that addresses the issues and challenges of the 21st Century – to the American voters in 2008. We will not waste time pointing fingers. Instead, we will focus on how America can find common ground on critical issues – to give the overlooked moderate majority a voice and a choice in 2008. If you feel disenfranchised by your own party but you can't stand the other party, check out the Unity08 website today!

To "Julie Gilbart" wrote on Jun 21, 2007 9:12 AM:Informed and well stated. I give you much credit for taking the time to explain what I myself have tired of trying to do. The barrage of misinformation has caused so many to completely lose sight of what the First Amendment actually says and means. In addition, the forefathers are given less and less credit for their wisdom in establishing foundational principles based on Christian principles. The very thought that they could have done such a thing seems to make some so uneasy these days. Sad. Nevertheless, thanks again for attempting to set the record straight.

Laughing at Creationists wrote on Jun 21, 2007 9:36 AM:Of course we haven't actually observed it happening. The time scales involved are far larger than the entire span of all human history. We can see it in the fossil records, and we can see mechanisms in mutation and natural selection. We do see microorganisms evolve in short spans of time: witness the rise of resistant tuberculosis for example. Evolution is a fact.

No Amnesty! wrote on Jun 21, 2007 9:37 AM:Not now, not ever. Control the border and start tightening the legal screws. They will self-deport.

Ron wrote on Jun 21, 2007 9:46 AM:And again, let me see if I can get the point that I believe your trying to make here. "Pharm costs @3:30 PM" said: The government, via US taxpayer dollars develops "all" drugs, and then Big Pharma companies buy the patent, at a very low cost I'm assuming (so, in essence, they steal it), and then spend the rest of their time, marketing the drug for big profits. Is that your point? They basically "steal" the drug from us, then they re-sell it to us? They don't spend any of their own money on development, and that what we hear about $1 billion and 10 years from founding to market is all a bunch of baloney? Then, how do you square that believe with the fact that European companies are moving most of their R&D labs to the US? In 1990, European pharmaceutical firms outspent American firms on R&D by approximately 8 billion euros to 5 billion euros ($7 billion to $4.3 billion). In 2000, U.S. firms outspent European firms by 24 billion euros to 17 billion euros ($20.9 billion to $14.8 billion). Even traditional European firms, notably GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis, have moved many of their most essential operations to the United States. So, if the European system is superior, meaning, the Euro governments invest to produce the new drugs, why is it they only produced 4 new drugs to our 214? The answer is they restrain costs, they install price controls the drugs will be sold for, and it hampers reinvestment. So, they come here, where they will reap the rewards of their hard work.

just ranting wrote on Jun 21, 2007 9:48 AM:Gary Walker has completely lost me in his tirades against illegal immigration. "single greatest act of political treachery and anarchy in history"? "political ghouls"?"zombies"?"crawl out of their crypts"? What in the world is he talking about? And since when do the immigrants have "disrespect, contempt, intolerance and hate for our people"?? From reading the letters to this paper, I kind of thought it was exactly the opposite. This is over the edge ranting by a person who has obviously lost all ability to logically give his opinion. But it is sadly typical of someone whose opinion has no basis whatsoever in actual facts.

Ron wrote on Jun 21, 2007 10:18 AM:I see the koolaid drinkers have started early. Look, the bottom line is we need to give unquestioning, unwavering support to the President in any and all decisions he makes from immigration to reform to execution of the war on Iraq. Enough said!

el_patron wrote on Jun 21, 2007 10:24 AM:Rick Kellog simply does not know what he is talking about. Mucho silliness.

Ron wrote on Jun 21, 2007 10:24 AM:Well, James Giberson... you can thank Jimmy Carter for the doctrine of "protecting Arab petroleum", afterall, it was his idea, and written into all US policies since 1979. You remember... the same Jimmy Carter who got world-wide acclaim for Middle-East Peace, and at the same time invoking one of the worst political policies that has kept the Middle-East in unrest for more than 40 years. Could we have changed course, sure. We could have at that point, and since through many, many Congresses, and Presidents, made decisions to produce domestically, be more independent. But, we needed to have the itermediate steps too, before we could go green, or more green. We were denied by the enviro-nutters. No nuclear, no drilling, and more recently... no alternatives. Willmills kill birds... and yada, yada, yada. The problem I have with the "Greenies" is that it's their way, or the highway. They have no clue about how to get to the utopia. They just know utopia exists. In the mean time, you and I still need to get to work, refrigerate our food, our kids do their homework on their computers. Instead, what Greens attempt to do, is to demand via the government that you behave a particular way. If you live in Temecula, you need to drive, that's reality. In the Green world, you shouldn't. Government needs to design the community so that you can walk to work, or use mass transit. In other words, If I want to live in the country, you know.. an acre, a few animals, fruit trees, a garden. Nope, can't have it, but in the case they will allow you, drive a Prius. Never mind the fact you can't get your whole family into that single car. And it just goes on, and on. This kind of "Central Planning" really reminds me of the former Soviet Union and their apartments over the factories, much like I have personally seen in China. The government decides on where you live, where you work based upon the central planning. If the apartments are over the factory, then you live there. Where is the freedom and liberty in that? And that's the problem I bascially have with most Greenies, they almost never talk about individual freedom, unless their talking about separation of church and state. (Funny, how that thinking keeps coming up?)Solar power on rooftops, great idea, but still kinda expensive. Especially if your a two-earner family, nearly maxed out with a mortgage, kids, and other expenses just trying to make it through the month. Now, they want you to install a 19% efficient solar panel on your house at about $20K a pop. Yeah.. sure.. just take out a second. Totally unrealistic, because they believe in the utopian, while you and I live here.. in the real world. Eventually we will get there, but there must be intermediate steps and exceptions made on the path to a greener America.

GFN wrote on Jun 21, 2007 10:31 AM:Radio talk show host Michael Savage: Someone asked a few days ago who he is. His show is on AM station 760, KFMB San Diego from 3-7 pm. I find his program the most interesting; Rush is one dimensional and a ... hypocrite; I respect Hannity, but cannot stand the banter-"Shawn, you are a great American", "No caller, you are a great American", "No Shawn, you are a GREATER American!"...barf..."No, you're Smoopy"; O'Reilly, I find, is good, listenable, and reasonable. Savage is a basic conservative; he believes we should be in Iraq but does not like how we pussy-foot fight the war; he loathes the "Reverends" Jesse and Sharpton, as we all do, even Blacks and Liberals; he is totally against illegal immigration, amnesty, and multi-culturism; he has written three bestselling books, one of which is "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder"; he believes that radical Islam is the world's greatest danger and needs to be stopped now. I probably lean 51% liberal, mainly due to my upbringing and personal experiences, but I agree with almost all of what Dr. Savage says and find him listenable. He is a little quirky at times but he listens and is not a one-trick pony who has convictions that must be defended regardless of the facts. There you are.

JACK wrote on Jun 21, 2007 10:34 AM:Ron wrote on Jun 21, 2007 10:18 AM: I have read the term, koolaid drinkers, often on this blog. What is a koolair drinker? Thanks. Jack

Question for patriots wrote on Jun 21, 2007 10:37 AM:Did you all give unquestioning, unwavering support to Bill Clinton? Do you believe that the President should be given this kind of unconditional support even when he breaks the law? Is that patriotic in a democratic republic? Does it mean that in midterm elections we should all vote only for candidates for Congress who have vowed to give this kind of support to the President, since voting for any who disagree with him would violate that support?

GFN wrote on Jun 21, 2007 10:37 AM:I believe I detect a "phony Ron" at 10:18...if you are, please don't do it again. I don't always agree with him either, but he's educated and passionate and deserves respect. Your actions diminish yourself and the page.

Alf wrote on Jun 21, 2007 10:45 AM:You, "Ron", are out of what's left of your mind if you think that people should support a liar, an invader and the one person directly responsible for the deaths of over 3,400 American soldiers, just because this madman is President. I give unwavering support to those who have proved that they worthy, that have earned it, not GWB, not no how, not no way. At every juncture GWB has failed the American people except to produce sound bites and dead soldiers. And now he will find an "emergency" to declare himself a higher authority than the legislature and judiciary. That is a direct violation of his oath of office and the United States Constitution. Does that sum it up for you? Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

C'mon Mr Kellogg wrote on Jun 21, 2007 10:48 AM:You know perfectly well that the Dawkins quote makes sense. Think about how many things we know about the distant past, from observation, that we have not "observed happening". This kind of knowledge is not uncommon at all, and you know it. If variation within a species is a given, and if any of that variation is passed on genetically (also a given), then how would changing environments and isolation of groups within a species NOT be evolution in action? How would the environment NOT start selecting types differently? And why insist that this process could not produce new species in time? Finally, it is true that some who accept evolution are atheists and agnostics, but it's also true that many Christians and Jews accept evolution. So Darwinism cannot make one an atheist. You also know this. Please be more intellectually honest.

to Ron at 10:18 wrote on Jun 21, 2007 10:48 AM:Glad to hear you are such a big supporter of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. And maybe Hillary? Gosh if she wins we will never hear a disparaging word from you I guess. Who'd a thunk it?

Another phony wrote on Jun 21, 2007 10:52 AM:Why would someone act like a teenager and pretend to write silly things like Ron at 10:18 or Concerned-1 @ 7:56. If you want to act like an idiot, go do it on some other blog. You're ruining it for everyone else here.

Question for GFN wrote on Jun 21, 2007 10:52 AM:I'm confused about this Michael Savage (I'm the one who asked about him). You say you are 51% liberal and you say that Savage says liberalism is a mental disorder. So are you a little over half crazy? Doesn't it bother you that he thinks (or pretends to think, which is worse) that liberals are insane? I'm obviously an avoider of talk radio (any talk radio), and so far, what you say about Dr. Savage (what's he a doctor of?) sounds about par for the course, and confirms my avoidance. But thanks for the information.

JACK wrote on Jun 21, 2007 11:12 AM:TO RON: Disregard my request for definition of koolaid drinker. Found description on Google.

true American wrote on Jun 21, 2007 11:14 AM:I was thinking what a great letter Bill Hasty was writing in support of Ron Paul for president until I got to the end where he says "True Americans (patriots) would vote for Dr. Paul..". Why does everyone keep thinking that only people who believe as they do are "true Americans"? That whole idea even is what I would call un-American.

To "GFN" wrote on Jun 21, 2007 11:14 AM:The same can be said of "Concerned-1 wrote on Jun 21, 2007 7:56 AM:" Poor attempts to disparage these posters. Very childish to begin with, but weak as well.

OBSERVATION wrote on Jun 21, 2007 11:17 AM:Concerned-1 wrote on Jun 21, 2007 7:56 AM:I suggest that you go to IRAQ.

Huh? wrote on Jun 21, 2007 11:23 AM:To Ron's imposter, 10:18am...I don't know a single blogger here on this site who "gives unquestioning, unwavering support to the President in any and all decisions he makes". Must be your Bush Derangement Syndrome acting up again.

OBSRVATION wrote on Jun 21, 2007 11:26 AM:Ron wrote on Jun 21, 2007 10:18 AM: Concerned-1 wrote on Jun 21, 2007 7:56 AM: I would not get excited about the above two posts. I think that they are from some prankster out to get a few laughs and a few danders up.

Ron wrote on Jun 21, 2007 11:28 AM:Well, it appears again... sadly, that when you can't beat the argument, you go to subtrafuge, i.e. using my user name, not telling us who you really are, i.e. the Dem's in the last election. You see, I have made many, many criticisms about this President, his prosecution of the war, stances on North Korea, Iran, adding onto Medi-Care with a huge drug program, and immigration. And yet, I still get accused of being a kool-aid drinker for Bush. That's ok, I'm a big boy, I'll leave that kind of cheap shot to the guys in the cheap seats, politically speaking. But, in my mind, a kool-aid drinker is one who touts the party line no matter what. But, mainly, I reserve that comment to those who are the utopians. They basically believe that government is good, and it's only Bush who has messed it up. They believe in mandating the way other people live, in order to achieve their utopian ideal, via central control. For me, these kind of people tread just a little too close to Lenin and Mao for my liking. For example, I think and believe, that if I want to work in San Diego, and live in Temecula that should be my business. I have the freedom to do it in America. In their mind, it would be better for the government to plan my life, to make my home close to my job, and stop me from driving to work, or try to get me to ride a train, or something. What if I like to drive? I like living in the country, where I can have a few acres, own a few animals, grow a garden. They believe they can and must "plan" my lifestyle, in order to achieve fairness and equal outcomes. If people want to ride a train, or live close to work, I don't have a problem with it, if they "want" to, which means they "choose" to. That is liberty, that is freedom. Choices are very important to me. If you centrally design and plan a system in which you limit my choices, aren't you also limiting my liberty? The right to live my life as I see fit? They believe in freedom within certain parameters, and they get to decide the parameters in which you get to choose. That is not freedom, and that is not the America I want to live in.

I like it wrote on Jun 21, 2007 11:32 AM:People calling themselves "Ron" or "concerned1" or whatever are ok with me. I kinda like it. Too often for my taste, these blogs are about people rather than ideas. To me, "Ron" is just the name attached to some particular post, not a person. For all I know or care, Ron, concerned-1, Alf, and GFN might be the same person. I appreciate the personal nonexistence here. IMHO

bvv wrote on Jun 21, 2007 11:35 AM:[1]How fitting that Kennedy (Chappaquiddick), & McCain (Keating Five) are leading the amnesty bum's rush for millions of illegals. Birds of a feather donchano. [2] Couldn't have described the Senate's immigration bill better myself: ""It's like a loose thread on a cheap sweater, you start pulling and the sleeve comes off."- Senator Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) [3] Think we'll get socialized medicine after we import a few million more poor immigrants? S?¡Usted puede apostar a ? (you can bet on it)

Health Care wrote on Jun 21, 2007 11:35 AM:Ron, at 7:43, gives us anecdotes of some Europeans who've got complaints. Of course, finding Americans with complaints would not be hard. And we've had a blogger here who lived in France for years and thought the health care was great. This is why anecdotal evidence is nearly meaningless. And why data like that of the WHO are not meaningless. I'll go by the real thing, personally.

to Ron wrote on Jun 21, 2007 11:41 AM:What does where one or two individuals go for healthcare have to do with an entire healthcare system? Wealthy people can go where ever they want, and probably do. So what. Compared to France and Holland, countries I have lived in, our health care system is sub-par. Why? Because much of our health care dollars goes to administration and advertising, not health care. A socialized (and let me repeat for your benefit, socialism is not and never has been communism) health care system is more efficient. And in the case of other industrialized nations, functions better. I've seen it in action in two European countries and I can tell you it works and it saves money. I know you are retired military, so maybe health care costs aren't a big deal but I own a company with 35 employees and health care costs are becoming overwhelming. Now, I'm not saying we should adopt a European system. I'm just saying we shouldn't dismiss it out of hand just because it is socialist. At any rate something has to be done, the sooner the better.

evolution wrote on Jun 21, 2007 11:43 AM:Rick Kellogg is a good example of why the Founding Fathers and subsequent Supreme Court Justices have wanted to keep religion out of government. Too much religion seems to cloud the mind and prevent any semblence of rational thought.

GFN wrote on Jun 21, 2007 12:04 PM:To Question: Yeah, I probably should have cleaned that up a bit, but I thought it to be a bit whimsical so I left it. An example of what I meant: I believe in personal responsibility, people should take care of themselves, however, Ahhhnold our Gov. put it best when he said, "Personal responsibility is when you pull yourself up by the bootstraps, but what do you do if you do not have bootstraps?" I was fortunate enough to be able to reach a wonderful lifestyle in a great country, but I had a lot of help. I did, however, use the help to do well, so I believe we really should provide opportunity to all, and continue to do so with those who utilize that chance to advance. I believe that makes me kind of liberal, but not over 51%. That's what I meant. You have a good eye.

Ron wrote on Jun 21, 2007 12:04 PM:Alf, Alf, Alf... calm down. Your beginning to scare me. Your a long ways away from your usual well balanced, educated assessments. I think your are beginning to go down the road of the kool-aid drinker diectly towards the grassy knoll. The "grassy-knoll" types are those who see a Bush dictatorship, behind every gesture, like the wink he gave, during his speech yesterday. Maybe, if he were a skirt chaser, like the former President... then you could assure yourself he found a purdy gal in the audience. I respect your viewpoint on the war in Iraq, and I respect you for voicing your reasons. We just frankly disagree on what Iraq means. But, when you start getting off in the "tall grass", as they say in golf, your listing over just a little too much to remain reasonable.

LG wrote on Jun 21, 2007 12:18 PM:Bill Hasty uses the politically incorrect “LG” phrase . . . that’s why people won’t vote for Ron Paul. A vast majority of Americans don’t want limited government ... they love to be governed, and they love government ... it’s their “daddy” ... it protects them from the bogeyman, and give them “free” stuff. The government is their all-knowing, as-seeing, omnipotent master and they are happy serfs. Some one like Ron Paul ... i.e., someone who thinks like a Thomas Jefferson or a James Madison ... is their worst nightmare.

Ron wrote on Jun 21, 2007 12:20 PM:To "Health Care @11:35 AM", believe me, I hear the complaints about healthcare virtually everyday. No system is perfect, not ours, not the Europeans. In fact, several Euro countries are reforming their own systems back towards a more market place/capitalist system. Not totally, but it's moving back in that general direction. So what that tells me, is they now understand they have gone too far over in one direction, socialized, and are now "adjusting" it. So, there appears to be a needed balance. Now, why would they reform towards a more market friendly system? Exactly what I wrote about earlier, they are losing the "cutting edge" people because of the socialized system. That's what it tell me. I'd be glad to know what your thoughts about it would be.

To Dr. Arthur Stehly wrote on Jun 21, 2007 12:34 PM:After reading your letter, I have to tell you I don't feel very sorry for your cause. Yes, the costs to build have gone up, but the hospital is not the only project to experience that (i.e. Police/Fire Stations & I-15 expansion/carpool lane project). Shall all these projects be "abandoned", because the costs have gone up? You stated that the increased costs "will drive up the cost of health care for all of us who live in the Palomar hospital district". Yes, that is a very real probability - however, I don't believe you (as a Doctor) will be affected as much as others (like myself). It's common knowledge that Doctors make BIG BUCKS and have excellent benefits! And it's common knowledge that most of the more pretigious professions do not incur the costs, they increase their fees for their services. Regarding your statement that the move "will hurt downtown"...because they won't have money to renovate the present site. The Hospital District is not responsible for the "survival" of downtown Escondido! Downtown Escondido needs to stand on it's own. What about all the hype for the new Marriott? The multiple condominium developments? Ca Center for the Arts & Signature Theatres Plaza? Don't you think those things will support downtown Escondido? I don't know of many cities that base their city's downtown environment/livelihood/revenue around a hospital. Furthermore, you wrote: "... building a whole new hospital is like throwing the baby out with the bath water...". Well, that's a bit dramatic, don't you think? I will be calling the number you referenced, to tell the hospital board that I am in favor of the new hospital - that's what I voted for and that's what I want to see. I certainly don't want to see our taxpaying dollars spent on trying to stick a bandage on a broken back. Face it, Dr. Stehly your fight has already been fought. The voters have spoken, the hospital district has spoken and the city council has spoken. Now, the only thing left to do, is for people like you to be quiet. P.S. The last & only time I went to Palomar I waited in the emergency room for more than seven hours - it was completely obvious that the facility could not meet the demands. It was a totally miserable experience for me...I definately want what this new hospital has to offer!

The pattern continues wrote on Jun 21, 2007 12:38 PM:One of the most boring aspects of this blog, if you're here for a while, is that a common daily pattern exists. Ron pontificates. Normally, the points he makes come from a limited menu of his ideas. There's the "government does everything badly" theme; the "immigration problem" theme; the "Democrats are bad, too" theme; the "military is wonderful" theme. Maybe just a couple of others. So Ron throws these out daily in their baroque forms so we don't notice it's the same ideas over and over. Then, the rest of the day, people reply, mostly with good evidence and logic showing why Ron is off base. Ron might reply to some, ignoring the tough points so he can rehash his ideas again. Next day, same story. I guess in a way it's a good thing: Ron tosses out hanging curve balls and the blog fills with information. But really, isn't it boring?

el_patron wrote on Jun 21, 2007 12:53 PM:The average European wouldn't trade places with the average American. The European system and culture is, at this time (1995-present) superior to the American system. They are healthier, happier, more secure, and are just generally doing better. The rich come here to buy top-notch care, but the normal people know they have it good compared to us. You hear about waiting for a hip replacement in Canada. What you don't hear are the details. A younger person, who lives on physical skills, moves ahead of a 65 yo retiree for that operation, but they all get it. They all get it for almost no cost. But no one gets plastic surgery and botox. And, guess what? They don't have TV spending billions on ads telling us to ask our doctor about some pill that makes us walk through flower fields. So we had 214 new drugs? How many of true use? What about the "orphan drugs? Hey Ron, how about the "orphan drugs?" I'm saying BIG GOV needs to point in that direction.

Ron wrote on Jun 21, 2007 12:54 PM:I and I say to: "to Ron @11:41 AM", Yes, I know what the differences are between socialism and communism are, socialism is on the road towards communism per Marx. Try quoting him once in awhile, instead of couching your terms. Quote the source. So, you lived in these countries, what does that have to do with "how" to finance a system? I've said, I don't doubt for one second you can get good healthcare in socialized systems, but it depends upon what type of services your seeking. In America, if you have the need (and want, sometimes), the money, you will get the medical treatment. In socialized systems, bureaucrats get to decide. They decide how much they will pay a doctor, how much you will pay, when, where, and stipulations. For example, in 2005, the British system, the bureaucrats, decided if you were "X" amount overweight, from a financial point of view, the outcomes on certain surgeries weren't going to be covered. Not the doctor, not the professionals, the bureaucrats. A letter from yesterday told the story of a social worker in mental health having his fee cut by 54%, then to 45%, by government fiot. Don't you think that that decision by an outsider makes a difference to real people in the real world? I hear what your saying about marketing costs, and I also hate getting the letters, brochures, and salesmen too. But, we live in a market place economy, and that's how it's done. Could it be done better, yes.. I think so too. But, what most of these people are talking about in their version of socialized medicine is a total control and take over, not a merging, as you and I are speaking of. We have our own examples of socialized medicine, Medi-Care, Medi-Cal, Medi-Caid, and they routinuely do as the Euro's do, is restrain the rising costs by budgetary decisions. In our free market, you can choose several versions of coverage, based upon the cost you are willing, or can pay. Some can only afford an HMO, very, very close to a socialized system, in my mind. We have PPO's, where you have more choices. The limiting factor here is cost. It's costs in the European system, and it's costs in ours. But, I totally reject this idea that the government will make the system more fair, and more affordable.

Question for GFN wrote on Jun 21, 2007 1:51 PM:Thanks for your 12:04 response. So many people who attack liberals miss this crucial point, that who we are depends on a lot of other people so our bit of a 'bleeding heart' contains a desire to pay the world back and to realize that not everyone had the breaks we did. Even when we want this or that government program to help, it isn't to give everyone a utopian free ride, only to help others get the little assistance that we were lucky to get and they are unlucky not to have. If that's being mentally ill, then I'm proud of that illness.

Drugs wrote on Jun 21, 2007 2:15 PM:el_patron (12:53) makes an important point. The new drugs are new because the old drugs' patents are about to expire. How much drug research done by pharmaceuticals is aimed at finding that little molecular change that will make the old drug new? The only thing "wrong" with the old drug was that it lost its profit potential for that company. Now they "develop" a new drug and spend millions marketing it, using every means possible to convince the doctors and patients that it's the new one that needed.

Is this acceptable? wrote on Jun 21, 2007 2:33 PM:From ABC News, QUOTE: Vice President Dick Cheney has asserted his office is not a part of the executive branch of the U.S. government, and therefore not bound by a presidential order governing the protection of classified information by government agencies, according to a new letter from Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to Cheney. Bill Leonard, head of the government’s Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), told Waxman’s staff that Cheney’s office has refused to provide his staff with details regarding classified documents or submit to a routine inspection as required by presidential order, according to Waxman. In pointed letters released today by Waxman, ISOO’s Leonard twice questioned Cheney’s office on its assertion it was exempt from the rules. He received no reply, but the vice president later tried to get rid of Leonard’s office entirely, according to Waxman ENDQUOTE Here's another one I just have to ask Republicans about: is this practice and philosophy of Cheney's acceptable to your notion of our government? Do you feel that it's right and good that when Cheney is asked to comply with a law, that he refuses and then attempts to get rid of the office that asks? Would you feel exactly the same way if it had been VP Gore?

the pattern 2 wrote on Jun 21, 2007 2:38 PM:One of the most boring aspects of this blog, if you're here for a while, is that a common daily pattern exists. Ron bashers who don't have anything meaningful or constructive to say simply resort to trying to discredit Ron. Not with facts of course. With name calling and insults. Hate-filled invective. Normally, the lack of any meaningful debate comes from a limited menu of ideas. This is evident in "the pattern continues" 12:38pm post. There's the "Ron is tired" theme; the "Ron is mean" theme; the "Ron frustrates me" theme; the "I have no original thoughts" theme. Maybe just a couple of others. So this blogger throws these out daily in their childish forms so we don't notice it's the same carrying on over and over. But never with facts of his own to back him up or try to actually convince others that his ideas are actually better. Only negativity and name calling. But really, isn't it boring? "

Alf wrote on Jun 21, 2007 2:58 PM:Well, "I like it", - First, I am not "Ron", real or otherwise. Second, all we have are our "handles" here and our opinions. It degrades the whole debate or argument or exchange to have an imposter spout nonsense. Several times the people have been the victims of cowards who try to muddy the water impersonating someone else. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

Alf wrote on Jun 21, 2007 3:03 PM:There is a reason that I am a Libertarian, "LG", because LIMITED GOVERNMENT, minimal government, personal freedom and personal responsibility are the very essence of Libertarian philosophy. Thank You. An unashamed Libertarian, Alf.

Ron wrote on Jun 21, 2007 3:07 PM:If your all primed and ready for socialized whatever... then more power to ya. The Water people are out again, diggin up my street to re-repair what they have been repairing for the last few years. Before they started this time, the street was re-paved, now, it's all dug up again, and I'm driving on steel plates. Can someone please tell me, if central planning works, why do they dig the street up, after they've paved it? But, some will continue to believe that government is the solution to problems. Basically, they see people as the problem, because people don't do the utopian ideal, as they believe they live. The whole argument about socialized medicine is about fairness, at it's base. Some don't have it, others have more than they ought, so these people believe they should step in, and equalize the situation. This is a moral issue for them, and they seek to shove their morals onto you, via your wallet. Many point to the European system, or the Canadian system as examples of how it can be done. No one questions whether it can be done, what I question is that outcome. Will it do what they say it will do? And here's the key difference: In our system, we seek to bring people up. In those systems, they seek to bring all down to the same level. I don't know why, well I do know why... but why don't we talk about how to insure those currently without? Instead of totally reforming and recreating someone else's system in our country? 15% of our population is not a reason to totally re-structure. What is behind it, I fear, is a real despotic reign of terror. One our founders continually warned us about, and gave us guns to fight against, if the time came. Is it any wonder they want your guns too? Coincidence? Or planned out?

Jake wrote on Jun 21, 2007 3:29 PM:Ron (7:43 AM), are you loco? We can't just go to europe and use their superior medical care--Just because you're a US citizen doesn't mean you can just go over their and gi'me gi'me gi'me--sorry Ron.

to The Pattern Continues wrote on Jun 21, 2007 3:34 PM:I could not concur more wholeheartedly. And yet here we are daily. For all intents and purposes I would suppose there is less than 10 people who blog here on a regular basis. And it is the same stuff day in and day out. Nobody changing anybody's minds. But I also do think it is an important function, even as limited as it is. It's a start. At least we are starting a dialogue, even it is mostly a monologue. No longer should we accept that "that's just the way things are." "or they are all a bunch of bums" or "they've been fighting for thousands of years nothing is going to change." And on and on. Things do change. Things can change. And things will change. We need to stop seeing problems in the world as someone elses fault. We need to start looking at resolution as all of our responsibility. My role mostly in this blog is as equalizer. I don't care what anyone thinks about a certain topic or issue. That's their business. It's when they need to tear down other peoples belief structures in order to support their own that I speak up. It's like people standing in a circle pointing fingers at who spilled the milk. Let's get past that and work on cleaning it up. I live in one of the greatest places on earth. And if we can build it here why not everywhere? It's not about money. Money is an idea. It's abstract. We need to start at the end. We need to get past the negative ideas that it's too expensive to do this or that. We need to say things like everyone needs excellent health care in the world. Everyone needs a solid education. I'm not talking about redistribution of wealth and whatever other criticisms these thoughts will bring. I'm talking about end results. How do we get there is the question. Not whether or not it should be done. We can end poverty in this generation on this planet. It's about people and their motivations, not politics, not economics. We are on the cusp. The pattern can change.

Alf wrote on Jun 21, 2007 3:36 PM:Well, "Ron", did GWB or did he not recently issue forth a decree that allows him to do exactly what I said? If he did, and his definition of "emergency" is as variable as he wants, no set criteria was issued was it? How many ways does he have to screw up personal Liberty, how many UNCONSTITUTIONAL things must GWB do before you say "ENOUGH!!"? The unfortunate thing is that it may already be too late. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

Ron wrote on Jun 21, 2007 3:53 PM:Well... why can't we Jake? Isn't our money good over there? Or do we have to have Euro's or something?

to the pattern 2 wrote on Jun 21, 2007 4:00 PM:I totally agree with you that all the name-callers should go away. But the point remains that Ron's blogs are regularly answered with facts and logic. Those are most certainly not boring.

Ron wrote on Jun 21, 2007 4:02 PM:Alf, cool your jets a minute. Think about it... is this document really any different than what we have seen before. No, it's not. FDR had the right to cease... not ask, cease private property in a state of emergency. And many, many, many other things that will make your hair stand on end. Go back and look. You don't trust, Bush, I get it. I didn't trust Clinton. Your more suspious, fine I get it. But don't go over the edge. We are at a time of war, on several fronts, don't you think planning for a potential nuclear strike, is a good thing to do? It is possible, right? We got so many people getting themselves at worked up, and yet... When Clinton had given himself the right to search your home, without a warrant, no one on the left seemed upset. Why do you think that is? Clinton also sent rendition suspects to Eypgtian prisons for interrogation, and no one blinked. Why do you think that is? Wasn't he also violating the Constitution