Jim

Now we're getting silly. You could rephrase it - but that's not what the article said. I did read several of the articles linked to the Wickapedia site - as I stated. If you going to base your argument on "scholarly" works, and not just your opinion, then don't get caught trying to bend the words to match your opinion and then accuse others providing some solid examples that contradict your opinion as non-scholarly. Cheers. Wasn't claiming that the articles in question weren't "scholarly," but that they didn't specifically address the question under discussion. I've provided a paper which does specifically address these claims, which I invite you to read, if you wish to base your objection to my argument on the contention that it has no support in the literature. Just because you didn't read a paper that contains the argument or the data to support my claim, doesn't mean that such papers don't exist. If you're going to play that game, at least play it fairly. Again: http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/ross/doesoil.pdf Huh? I did read that article. It's summary is that "oil rich poor countries" (and some variation of mineral-rich) are generally susceptible to undemocratic forces. It says nothing about single resouce vs multiple resource. It also makes strong distinctions regarding developed countries vs poor and undeveloped - with some variations regarding the Arabian Penninsula. Previous examples of developed countries with strong oil economies - UK, Norway, are actually backed by this paper. You could have saved yourself some grief by more accurately summarizing the article and not stretching it to accomodate your argument. 'nuff said.

Now we're getting silly. You could rephrase it - but that's not what the article said. I did read several of the articles linked to the Wickapedia site - as I stated. If you going to base your argument on "scholarly" works, and not just your opinion, then don't get caught trying to bend the words to match your opinion and then accuse others providing some solid examples that contradict your opinion as non-scholarly. Cheers.

I went back and looked at the Wickipedia reference you posted and the linked article. I didn't see anything related to "single resource" vs "multiple resource" economies, only a distinction between countries "rich in natural resources" and those that "lack natural resources". And while there was one paper that addressed the increased likelyhood that a country "rich in natural resources" would have more issues with corruption - I saw no mention of a correlation with "repressive regimes". Seems to me you're stretching this analogy. In addition - the US is quite resource rich and a democratic country (sort of). I don't think your thesis is holding much water here - and not backed up by what you have cited. One of the countries cited in the summary (your link) is South Korea. The summary goes on to say lacking natural resources South Korea has concentrated on investments in education and that has lead to a more diverse economy. My oh, my though - a step across the border and we have a similar country, similar lack of natural resources, and quite a repressive regime.

I actually thought that was a pretty good refute.

Liberal again violates rules. Remember Gore in debate US not founded upon Christian doctrine. -Washington

The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine. -- George Washington

I think it could be argued that our attacks on the Taliban have inflamed some portion of the Muslim population. That would be an accurate observation, but does not eliminate our right to defend ourselves from a tangible threat. What we have done in Iraq however, is to inflame not only our enemies, but piss off neutral or marginally aligned countries, and even our closest allies can't fully support us. Our Iraq adventure has taken away from our clear moral imperative and good will we had going into Afghanstan. I would say the same for our secret renditions, the torture, and GitMo. And Iraq has served as a distraction to the real fight, sucking up resources which should have been used in Afghanistan.

I don't think there is much argument against us fighting radical Muslims in Afhghanistan, but that was not the issue in Iraq, nor was it even one of the false ones put up by the Bush adminstration. The chaos we have caused in Iraq has made it a cause celebra for some proportion of home-grown fanatics/Iran-supported groups/former Bathists thrown in with the Shia/Sunnie thugs and you have what you see. We kicked up that hornet's nest, flubbed what could best be call an ill-conceived (bordering on fanatic obsession)plan and now the neocons have back-pedaled on their predictions of flowers for the victor. They do, however, find it convienient to utter modifications of "the Russians are coming" and point eastward during key legislative debates and election time.

Oh please, please, please, bump the Yankees out of the playoffs. Then I will win a care package from a Jewish deli from my east coast sister. I'm tired of sending her salmon.

That was a nuanced response!!! I agree.

Great start - using the analogy of 9/11, which has nothing to do with Iraq. Based on this false foundation everything that follows uses the same purporsely muddy construct. They hate our freedom. I would venture it's quite a bit more complicated than that and the west's history of propping up undemocratic governments in trade for oil has had some lasting effcts. Certainly most folks would agree that terrorism is not the answer. But again, nothing related to Iraq. Though he softens this a bit later he's tarring a religious group for the acts of a minority. This is good. There's more than an undertone of antisemitism brewing here. Read on, now we'll make the leap from linking Christians to Nazis to Muslims. It's a simpleton's analogy. He must be a bright guy to be a doctor - buy his lack of any historical perspective of the middle east is apparant. Most folks would not take issue with this premise. It's the one floating around in the background that is the proble. Hello - the 911 hijackers came mostly from Saudia Arabia - none from Iraq, Iraq had nothing to do with it. What the Bushies should have been asking from the start is what are the risks and what are the benefits from taking such a provocative step in the middle east. Will this bring our allies together? Will it help solidify our enemies and help flame the passions of terrorism? Any clear-eyed analysis would have (and did) highlight the complications of going into Iraq for no justified reasons. Buddy, get a clue. The war in Iraq was lost soon after the invasion. Go over the ticklist of blunders. Disbanning the army, marginalizing all Bath Party members despite no matter their involvement, picking necon loyalists and good christians to run the show instead of seasoned middle east and reconstruction experts, having too little troops to ensure security, not quashing the Madi Army when we had the opportunity. And much more. It's not the editorial writers of America that lost the war in Iraq. It was an ill-concieved war based on hubiris, an false necon vision pushed by a Washington elite, and executed by the three stooges. Bullshit. What we are most at risk of losing is our the foundations the country was built upon, rule of law, right of privacy, due process, and democracy. The Bushies have played the fear card often and with effeciency for political gain. Our image in the world is quite tarnished. How can we say we're bring democracy to the world when we have a gulag in Cuba? I have more faith in our system than that. I trust that our hard working law enforcement and justice department staff can put on trials that are fair and lock the nutjobs up. Oh this is good. Geneva Conventions - down the toilet, right to privacy - how outdated. Certainly we should not expect that some things to change - but are we so much safer with the TSA (Thousands Standing Around) putting on a good show at airports? Has the Iraq invasion somehow diluted the terrorists ambitions? If we withdraw will they be falling over themselves to get over the Brooklyn Bridge. Please. Actually a number of them have been released because we determined they were innocent. And the vast majorty are in limbo because we are refusing to even make a determination on their innocence or guilt. When we are instramental in having someone kidnapped from Italy, flown to Jordon, tortured, flown to Cuba, and then - oops - nevermind - how does that reflect on our values. We have overstepped and stepped into a mess. The systematic torture of prisoners, the lack of any semblence of fair trials, forced renditions, secret CIA prisons - oh, where a shinning star on the world democratic stage these days. Conviently missing from this observation is any historical perspective. He's refering to the gassing of the Kurds during the Iran - Iraq war. At that time Iraq was our ally, percieved as a buffer to the fundamentalism in Iran and their growing power. Oh yea- and where did they get the constituients for the gas - from US manufacters. We were pretty chummy with Iraq back then. Oh - did he manage to forget that it was the CIA that assisted Sadamn's party into power way back. Minor details I suppose. When they start talking about dragging dead bodies around and mutilitation you know the argument is stretching. Didn't this start out as a justification for winning the war in Iraq? Iraq is going to be divied into 3 sections, it already is. When Iraq was created by the UK and the US by fat men leaning over the maps it was contrived. It stayed together only with the crushing brutality of a dictator. Now the violence is even more dispursed, electricty, water, food - all are in much shorter supply now than before we invaded. Remember that the oil was going to pay for this all? What a bunch of drivel. The war in Iraq has the US at more risk. We have sunk so many resources, huge sums of money, political capital, former goodwill of other nations, and chipping away at our democratic values. Can anyone really claim that something good has come, or will come of this folly? Bush is watching one thing, the clock. He will leave the mess for the next executive and the next Congress. The folks I most sympathize with are the army and guard troops, and their families, that are left to endure death, severe wounds, and continual rotations beyond what should be expected. The troops are at war, the rest of America is out shopping.

True. And that is why it is especially impressive that they took special pains to make sure that religion was seperate from government.

Have to agree with that scenario. Conversely if one were going to be in an area at least 5-7 yrs then I would defenitley buy rather than rent as you will make some money, or at the least, loose less money, than the rathole of rent.

I had a pair of Raichle's about 15 yrs ago and just wore them into the ground. Never had a blister. I picked up a pair of All Degrees recently and first time out got dime-sized blisters on both heels. Ouch! Probably should have prevent-taped. Any advice on how you break in new boots and methods of heel taping? My wife says its because I wear approach shoes for many outings and my feet don't get enough time in the bigger boots like I used to. Do folks heel tape for prevention often after say a season with new boots? Thanks.

OK, so we have an industry that will push the risk envelope to the max, similar to the S&Ls. Wouldn't it have been prudent to have some modest government oversight to keep some ceiling to this speculation? Crash and burns like this have effects outside the immediate industry. Unbridled captilism is not self-regulating - unless you like these types of events. How much did the S&L bailout cost taxpayers? I dumped my Fanne Maes two years ago when I didn't like the smell of things.

Excellent on-screen meltdown. Cramer is a hack. Where was he when all the dubious loans were being repackaged on the secondary market? Isn't this just the market correction the invisible-handers always talk about? I did agree with his reference to spending money in Iraq instead of fundamentals back home. But Greeny is not in charge anymore and the Fed is unlikey to come galloping over the horizon with a rate change anytime soon. Given our debt, we have to keep the Chinese in a mood for buy US securities. Nasty position for anything but conservative investing these days.

Gotta wonder why he would want to stay. Your staff hates you, even the Repubs are snarking at you, and your public image is in the toilet. I guess it also says something about the man's character that he was willing to make a complete fool of himself, more than once, in televised public hearings.

Ralph Stover State Park is just across the Delaware in eastern PA, and Allamuchy State Park of HWY 80 would be my first choices for easy/moderate topropping.

Yes. Much more efficienct than any insurance company. 1.4% overhead compared to 12%+ when including overhead and profit for private insurers. I know - you can find the reports from the insurance companies about the "hidden cost of Medicare". Right CBO report: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=5004&type=0

Post deleted by Jim

No. Just pay my way efficiently rather than have 200 insurance companies and their corresponding adminstrative overhead and profit, have a single payer system that saves enough money to cover everyone.

Or if you can't take the heat of debate in a democratic society then move to China.

You're correct. Given the resources we have in this country we should be doing a much better job of allocation of medical care. Instead we have a system that guarantees profit over health care. We're tied with what, Bosnia, at 39th on the World Health Organization health rankings?

Not going to happen. The refusal to submit to subpoenas - the strategy is to run out the clock. The Bush lawyers will ensure that this decision is delayed with proceedings until he is gone. Now that you don't hear Bush talk much about victory in Iraq he apparantly is using the same strategy here - run out the clock and hand over the mess to the next administration. It will be nice to have some adult supervision in the White House.

Facts seem to check out well enough in this film. I think it's obvious that the current system is not working well enough - 50 million uninsured and those that are subject to the willy-nilly decsions of the profit motive - that's reassuring.