Kimmo

i'm not quite sure if anything has been "hidden from sight", as you say; i've read somewhat regularly about wealth distribution in main-stream zines (although you do say it has been hidden from people by "indebting" them, which i can't say i understand). also, "indebting people" (within our current economic structures) isn't done without the compliance, to a large degree, of the very people being indebted. what i don't like is when the argument is framed as if the poor helpless americans have no choices about their finances. having said that, i'm not particularly a fan of an unfettered capitalism. having a limited fungible commodity (money) so unequally harvested and collected and hoarded by so few does not set up the conditions most conducive for collective well-being.

that sounds dramatic, but is that the best comparison point? As of June 2009 the debt was 82.5 percent of GDP based on current GDP. This level of debt has not been seen since 1951, with the nominal value the largest in recorded history. link

it only gets better cuz it's so real world descriptive. i can't tell you how many hippie types i run across who try to keep GM foods out of the hands of the starving.

seems that way, unless you are under 18. this is what they told me downtown when i got a birth cert for the little one.

i don't think anyone is saying that; they are saying that legal means must be extinguished before attempting your solutions. what's the saying? young, something something and full of ...."? bad for thoughtful action , but excellent for military commanders.

i am happy to say that i walk away from this post with some solace: solace that this post is so lacking in sanity that no one can be swayed by it in any way.

your work is appreciated, aric.

umm, that was in 2005, and it said rationing was "proposed"; was rationing in fact implemented?

you might be mistaken about "catastrophic insurance" policies, or you have looked at policies which i am unfamiliar with. most of these policies i am familiar with have a high deductible, a certain percentage copay for hospital visits or other procedures, with a cap on maximum out-of-pocket costs for policy holder (always(?) under 10 grand). correct me if i'm wrong.

if you didn't make statements like the following, i'd believe you: remember, you did say you knew nothing about the legality of the forced removal; you might investigate this first. tell me how our forefathers codified processes for the removal of a president who overstepped his or her boundaries; i believe it had something to do with "impeachment", yes?

yes, assumptions can lead one astray, and, being the sincere seeker of truth that you are, you would come to an understanding of the entire situation before jumping in and supporting one side or the other. it's the only way a just patriot can ever act, because once convictions based on truth and justice are lost, all is lost.

now we've really moved into the field of speculation (based on our political leanings).

i'm not sure, but if you are right, the articles of impeachment would seemingly come into play, yes? it seems that if indeed one is concerned about the unconstitutionality of the president's actions, one would support a constitutional approach to rectify the situation (since one exists; i think we can all agree that a military coup is decidedly unconstitutional, yes?).

maybe you can cite the relevant passage in the honduran constitution which specifically prohibits referendums? i tend to agree that constitutional changes through a referendum process is probably a bad idea, but your righteous vitriol indicates a level of expertise with the honduran constitution which certainly allows you to educate me. also, my limited understanding of the situation fosters a belief that the honduran constitution allows for the impeachment of the president; wouldn't you support the legal removal of a criminal president, versus the illegal removal of said president?

when was the constitution in its present form voted in? in the US, we cannot change our constitution through referendum; i'm inclined to think i'd rather not have it be malleable enough to be subjected to the whims of the general public. i'd think that in honduras, the solution would be to get better voter turnout, yes? and, would you really want to see an entrenched president (here or in honduras) winning term after term? we both know what kind of advantages incumbents enjoy (think ronald reagan and the talk about a constitutional amendment). ? i think they have a "functioning" democracy, where the people are free to vote on whoever they wish, right? now if you're talking about a "referendum" on constitutional changes, see above.

will you be my friend?

i thought we were in full agreement about you being an overly wordy pedant and nincompoop? i suppose it's easy to miss during these highly technical and sophisticated musings at cc.com.

leavng aside any justifications for a military coup for a moment, my understanding of the situation is that their constitution explicitly forbids multi-term presidencies, along with ANY ATTEMPT AT CHANGING THIS CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION. so the supreme court and congress both deemed Zelaya's actions to be unconstitutional, seemingly a rational assessment. But, is a military coup "constitutional"? They have constitutional recourse; namely, impeachment. hopefully the outcome of this situation will include the restoration of Zelaya as president, with LEGAL challenges to his actions.

the lines between "western" medicine and "alternative" medicine have blurred over the last few decades, and i think this is a good thing. there are MD's who are also ND's, and more and more doctors seem to understand that it doesn't so much matter whether an approach is "alternative" or orthodox, as long as the one who is seeking relief from a particular set of symptoms gets better. BTW, i only fly on the astral plane. see you there, buddy.

wow, you guys are pathetic cretins. thanks for reminding me why i dislike this place so much. tata.

they carry hep a.

this is true for some of the illnesses that we vaccinate for, but certainly not all of them. you or your kid do not want to contract tetanus and polio for instance (ok polio you won't get unless you travel cuz it's eradicated in the US, but tetanus is pretty horrendous); you probably don't want pertussis, cuz it's a pain in the ass for everyone (sweden stopped vaccinating from what '78 to '96, and there were thousands and thousands of cases, but only one fatality per year); and then hib-caused meningitis is shitty etc etc. and yeah money is involved, but you can't discount all vaccinations because pharmaceuticals push hard for sales. don't throw the baby out with the bath-water.

no, i'm going to take the opposite tack and ignore all potential harm, cuz it's all overblown hype anyway. sheesh, alarmists.

jeez, there are fish that excede EPA safety levels in a single serving. shark and swordfish i think? some tuna is up there too, so indeed there will be little consumed at this household.

dumber and moron then. very catchy.