What is truly amazing is how the groundswell has started from places like the Standard and through the conservative blogosphere, that war with Iran is not only feasible, but they believe to be the only option available at this time. They are honestly deluded that this is going to happen and NEEDS to happen.

I've heard McInerney and it sounds like Iraq all over again. Piece of cake. 28,000# bombs, 4000# bunker busters, special forces, Iranian dissidents, greeted as liberators, we have all heard it before. These people(THe STandard and conservative blogs) are so in a huff to make sure they credit the military with being the end all be all of the human race and stand out to gain the military vote ,they delude themselves to think that of course its possible, the military can do anything, and always do it well.

So we could bomb the hell out of Iran's nuclear capability? Do we have the intelligence apparatus to make it successful? Do we have that apparatus to tell us how successful it was when it's over? To me, anything short of all out invasion stops short of destroying their capabilities and only delays it. Is anybody advocating that? Do we have the manpower? Do we really want to occupy two Middle East nations. Surely, that would put at ease the minds of those in the region who fear imperialistic intentions. I don't see anything viable to suggest that a military option should be the way to go, unless we know that the consequences could be unthinkable. I don't see that scenario playing out either.

Posted at April 13, 2006 5:15 PM in response to Weekly Standard Votes for War

Posted at April 6, 2006 8:31 PM in response to More on Mass Health Bill-- The "Free Rider" Surcharge

It might be a myth, it might not be, that corporate interests are standing between us and UHC. For my money, it's the fact that the party in power doesn't care much about the problem. But to say that the present system works more or less fine with the majority is just wrong. As other commenters have mentioned, it isn't just access and choosing your doctor anymore. It is what it is costing everybody out of pocket.

And, working in healthcare, I can assure you NOBODY is happy with the direction that their care and their coverage are going. And polls support the idea that Americans as a whole recognize the US healthcare system is bloated, inefficient and in need of a significant fix.

And finding a way to guarantee coverage for the uninsured will help reduce the costs of care in and of itself but the vast majority of the rising costs come from overhead, pharmaceuticals and ironically, healthcare expenditures.

The dirty secret is that healthcare doesn't work like a typical supply and demand model. In fact, a convincing case can be made that competition has actually driven up costs through capital expenditures in an effort to keep up with the joneses and lessened the quality of care through belt tightening and focus on productivity.

Posted at March 3, 2006 10:38 PM in response to Is Health Care the One Big Thing?

See, to me, guys like Hewitt don't have a leg to stand on in this debate. His point of view is that the cartoons are offensive and the response is ridiculous and representative of what we are up against in regards to islamofascists. Ok.

 But then he wants to take it into a predictable indictment of the press as a whole. And to connect it to a press responsibility to not publish that which might impact "the war effort" negatively. Well, where has he been during the enitre war effort to this point? Abu Ghraib? Reconstruction delays? Security fiascos? Aren't all these propaganda tools also? Surely, but to suggest so would mean he would have to impugn a policy of the Bush Administration. And those like Hewitt can't have that. The press? That SCLM? Of course. In his eyes, they should only reoprt the positive from the GWOT, never distribute information that paints the US in a poor light. Until people like Hewitt decide to discuss any of these issues on their merit, without first deciding how it makes their partisan viewpoint look, they have no place in the debate. Sure, his postings make sense, but his main focus is how a story helps or hurts the war effort. It is either printable or not. The media is not responsible to help nor hinder anything.

Posted at February 10, 2006 12:41 PM in response to War and Cartoons

Through my wife and my discussions with teachers as our son approaches school age it is consistent that they are concerned that the "gifted" kids are being left behind, thus the response of gifted programs throughout elementary schools. The idea is that with less "help" in the form of aides and such, teachers often fall back on relying on the gifted kids to help out. We have been told time and again by teachers to not allow our son, who seems to be a pretty bright little fellow, to be used as a glorified teachers aide in the classroom

As teachers are bound more and more with teaching to tests in the hope that scores will go up and they will qualify for funding, the kids already at the top aren't receiving the push they need to stretch their boundaries. Some theorize this as the reason why the US is falling behind in science and technology. We are settling for mediocre. I don't think the argument should be between helping the kids who are struggling the most and pushing the kids who already get it. We are forcing teachers to look at the gifted kid and ignore them because they do get it. That is failure. The best schools manage to help each group equally. It can be done and should be the focus.

Posted at December 27, 2005 3:31 PM in response to Gifted Children Left Behind?

Matt, you can try to appear balanced by saying you can't "blame Bush" for the trend and that most Democrats don't want to do anything about it. But the bigger point to be made, heard and voted on, is that ZERO Republicans want to do anything about it. Never have, never will. At least during Democratic primaries we heard discussion of poverty, wages, middle class expansion, etc., even if it was primarily from John Edwards. The truth is that the party of Bush cares not one bit that the poor are becoming poorer. They still hold to the notion that if you give more capital to those that already have most of it and, hope really, really hard, that they will spend it on the masses then we will all flourish.

Democrats at least realize there is some pain happening below the top 10%, even if they don't have a canned, consistent response as to how to combat the problem, like "cut taxes." The focus that continues to be placed on Macro-economic numbers versus on the ground reality and the ever growing fight of the middle class with healthcare, energy costs, etc., in order to put the politics of the right in a better light explains all we need to know about the difference in focus.

Posted at December 6, 2005 1:44 PM in response to Trying Harder

Matt, I couldn't agree more. Everytime I hear about Republicans being the party of ideas all I see are plans to dismantle present programs. Nothing new. Cut taxes, go to war, cut programs for the poor and privatize everything. It never changes.

What Dems need to do is sort through the ideas presented by their side  that are out there, and do what Dems, liberals, progressives do best- argue their merits. Then, coalesce behind something and promote. Promote their own legislative agenda even if it has no chance, at least people will hear your plans. And preferrably long before elections. Stop being so passive and defensive and voice outside what is already being argued within your own party. 

Posted at June 13, 2005 1:52 PM in response to The Party Of Ideas