Michael Moore hypes "Sicko" on Capitol Hill

I won't make up my mind on this movie until I see it and get an alternate point of view.
As we all know Moore likes to portray the "truth" as he sees it with typical propaghanda techniques.

I wonder if he'll ever do a "documentary" on the "obscene" profits of his movies?

Let's see ....his last movie made about $25 million. I wonder how much of that went to him versus.....the camera guys,and the other low level people involved in the movie. I wonder if the percentage of difference between pay is greater than the left's favorite gripe about CEO salaries vs. employees.

The same progressives who believe that Bush staged 9/11 will lap up the ravings of Fidel Castro's favorite filmmaker, Michael Moore.

Michael Moore a true American hero!!! Suck it neo-con wingnuts. Fred Thompson is not Americas savior.

Sicko??? Is this an auto-biography?

Seriously, who cares what this tub of goo has to say? He takes bits and pieces and puts together a movie that gets to the conclusion he desires.

That fat, socialist slob violated American law by traveling to Cuba. He even admitted doing so. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing he should be able to hype for a while is the newest fashion in prison clothing.

Michael Moore was right on the money with Fahrenheit 9/11 and I'm sure this will be another fine documentary which the Neonuts (Fox Noise Channel,Rush Oxycontinbaugh etc) will try to spin.

I've also noticed that now that time has gone by, more and more people have come to see that Moore's look at the W. administration and the Neocons was so dead-on true that the rightwing smear machine, aka KKKarl Rove, was in full spin mode even before the movie was released.

Can't wait to hear the Wingnuts start screaming about Michaeal Moore again.

4...3....2....1...ding ding ding!

alternate caption:

"Why do you people keep confusing me with Crazy Joe Devola, who the hell is that"?

And, in another disturbing turn in the sad saga of Crazy Joe Devola, this message left on Frank James's answering machine:

Joe Davola: Frank, Joe Davola. *Pbt.* *Pbt.* *Pbt.* I have a hair on my tongue; I can't get it off. You know how much I hate that? 'Course you do, you put it there. I know what you said about me, James. I know you badmouthed me to the execs at the Libune, put the kibosh on my post. Now I'm going to put the kibosh on you. You know I've kiboshed before, and I will kibosh again.

Seriously, who cares what this tub of goo has to say? He takes bits and pieces and puts together a movie that gets to the conclusion he desires.

Posted by: Terry | June 20, 2007 9:27 PM

Kinda like how you put bits and pieces together to mislead us into Iraq.

We need to have a story with Michael Moore, George Soros, Barbara Streisand and Hillary Clinton all together.

We would be able to hear wingnut heads explode in basements everywhere. ;-)

I look forward to seeing the movie.

Alternate Caption Contest Entry:

"Why do you people keep asking me about propane"?

Don't you just love how the average,hard working wingnut always sides with Big Oil,Big Insurance Co's etc etc.

Would someone please explain to these idiots,you're not making Rush Limprod money fools,you work for a living,just like the rest of us.So,quit trying to act like a big hitter and admit that you're getting screwed just like the rest of us.

I see the wingnut screwballs who have nothing to add to the discussion but the typical he's fat and he has liberal friends and he makes money logical fallacies are out in force again - no surprise there. Too bad for them they don't have anything substantive to add, because somebody can be a 'tube of goo', liberal and rich and STILL BE RIGHT.
If Moore's movie is a catalyst for change, and I certainly think that is likely as the anecdotes in his documentary are un-impeachable (unlike certain members of the executive branch), then let's see how many of these bloviating lock-step marching fact-challenged wing-nuts decline to participate. Can someone say 'eating crow?'
It's enough to put you off your freedom fries when you learn that France is rated #1 worldwide in health care and the good-ol U.S of A. is #37 - just besting Slovenia.

Here is Michael Moore's solution for the problems of the Middle East:

“Hey, here’s a way to stop suicide bombings – give the Palestinians a bunch of missile-firing Apache helicopters and let them and the Israelis go at each other head to head. Four billion dollars a year to Israel – four billion dollars a year to the Palestinians – they can just blow each other up and leave the rest of us the hell alone.”

http://www.rjchq.org/News.asp?Formmode=Detail&ID=582

I amazes me that there are still Jews who identify with lefties like Michael Moore.

"Michael Moore was right on the money with Fahrenheit 9/11"

Wow John E. that's bad....even for you.

Yeah, conservatives were right. HMOs are great! Bush is so smart! You silly liberals don't know anything about fiscal responsibility. You can't use tax dollars to kill stem cells because it's a form of human life but, war is okay.

Why do all these people have to judge M. Moore on his weight and income? Why aren't they attacking every other hollywoood film-maker for making millions off their years of hard work. These people are attacking him because they are rich, don't think for themselves, do what everyone has told them their whole lives, and don't have to worry about taking care of their loved ones lives with our Health care system, which only is unconditional to those who have large sums of money. I feel sorry for people who choose not to listen to the people they disagree with as well... You can learn something from everyone!

In relevant part, weinerdog43 wrote:

"We need to have a story with Michael Moore, George Soros, Barbara Streisand and Hillary Clinton all together."

Why don't you aske the folks at South Park to whip up somehting? After all, they've already dealt with fat-boy, Hillary and Bahbooaah separately.

No, wait, you wouldn't like the result. It would make all of us so-called "wingnuts" laugh.

Dear Raving Loon:

Most of us so-called working class "wingnuts" know that we will get screwed even harder if we actually bought into all the socialist crap that fat-boy spews. If we bought it, we would lose more than our money; we'd lose our freedom too. No thanks. The Michael Moores of the world AND big businesses can all go screw themselves in one big pile.

I'll take that as a "YES" that I'm right if that's all you've got, JD.

MOST OF THE SAME PEOPLE WO WERE
AGAINSTCIVIL RIGHTS ARE MAKING
THE SAME BIGOTED COMMENTS ON
MICHAEL MOORE. THEY SHOULD
LOOK IN THE MIRROR TO SEE WHO THEY REALLY ARE. I WILL BETMOSTOF
THEM VOTEDFOR BUSHAND ARE
SICKOS WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THEM WHEN THEIR TIME COMES FACE UP TO
THEIR HEALTH PROBLEMS

We'll try this a third time: I thought "Sicko" was an autobiographical movie but I see it's just another bad Hollywood comedy.

Really, LIBune censors, how can you claim to be "protectors" of the First Amencment when you folks are worse than Stalin and Hitler combined?
AS stated previously, Tribune Reporters are PATHETIC!!!

Craig D:

Michael Moore is a fat slob and a tube of goo. I’ll take your word for the fact that he is rich. But he is no liberal. He is a socialist. [Madison, Jefferson and Washington were liberals; Lenin was a socialist; You figure out the difference by yourself.]

The most important thing to know about Michael Moore is that he is WRONG most of the time because he blindly supports “socialist” ideals while pretending to be perfectly oblivious to the down-side of such thinking.

Imagine, this guy actually believed insurance executives would go to jail if they didn’t maximize profits by bumping poor people off medical insurance rolls. That’s absolutely untrue and nonsensical. And, we’re supposed to believe this guy? Give me a break!

If socialized medicine is as great as he thinks, then why do Canadians come to the United States to have medical procedures performed here? The answer is that they don’t want to die waiting in line for the same procedure in Canada. People in Canada have already sued for – and won – the right to separate care than that which is provided in the Canadian system precisely because of its inability to deliver quality health care. And this is the same system Moore is promoting? And this is what we want to break our backs and bank accounts in taxes for? I don’t think so.

Never forget this: socialism doesn’t raise people up. It only makes everyone equally miserable.

John W,

What were you saying to your fellow Wingnuts when they nearly doubled the National dept going from $5 Trillion to $9.5 Trillion in a little under six years?

I'm guessing that you were still running your mouth to everyone who would listen that the Dems were going to make us go broke if they ever came to power, huh?

I thought you were a "real conservative" not a Neocon?
I've got news for you "W", "real conservatives" are Democrats now days...so what does that make you?

Let me spell it out for you.. N-E-O-C-O-N...

Hey ROBERT ROSSl:

You think just like Barak Obama. [But don't take that as a compliment.] You and Obama think that someone who is a conservative and opposes people like Michael Moore must also be "bigoted."

No, friend, I'm here to tell you that this is simply untrue. The noblest and highest goal of any society or government is to make people "free." Freedom is what allows men to come up with their greatest ideas and best efforts for themselves and society.

But freedom and government do not and cannot occupy the same space. Government is essentially organized force to compel compliance with rules. The more government there is, the more laws and regulations we have which limit an individual’s discretion to act freely in situations covered by the law. Thus, by definition, the more laws and government there are, the less freedom we have. This is what was meant by the saying, “The government that governs least, governs best.”

So, when people like Michael Moore suggest that government must intervene and take over our health care system, I must object. I have a hard enough time participating in a health care system in which insurance companies make life and death decisions based on the medical procedures they will pay for, or their determinations of what procedures are “cost effective” or not. At least I can change health plans if I don’t like the decision making process. However, I’ll be damned if I’m going to submit to having some bureaucratic bean counter in Washington make those same kinds of life and death decisions about me or any of my loved ones. The idea is totally revolting.

More importantly, to submit to a universal, national health care system is to submit to total government – which works out to the total loss of freedom. After all, if the government can regulate your health, what further liberty or privacy interest do you have that the government can’t take away in the name of more efficient health care?

No thanks. I’d rather go by the New Hampshire State motto: “Live Free or Die.”

If you look up "specious argument" in the dictionary you'll see, case-in-point;

The following article
Posted by: John W. | June 20, 2007 8:01 PM

"Not George Bush's War"? That's all you need to now about this absurd argument pieced together from the RNC database.

More nonsense from the party of non-accountability. What's next, Hitler was blameless for WWII?

Posted by: TheReamer | June 21, 2007 2:43 AM

To: TheReamer:

Try answering the arguments on the merits with facts and logic, rather than slurs, epithets and hyperbole. Then try not to take quotes entirely out of context, as you have. If you do, then someone might actually take you seriously instead of believing you are the Democratic Party lap-dog you appear to be.

Posted by: John W. | June 21, 2007 7:28 AM

Oh, you mean sort of like this?:

That fat, socialist slob violated American law by traveling to Cuba. He even admitted doing so. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing he should be able to hype for a while is the newest fashion in prison clothing.

Posted by: John W. | June 20, 2007 10:07 PM

What's the matter John W, forget the password to the RNC database? Had to resort to slurs, epithets, and hyperbole, eh?

Never forget this: socialism doesn’t raise people up. It only makes everyone equally miserable.

Posted by: John W. | June 21, 2007 2:21 PM

Geez, I hope I didn't take that out of context, but never forget this:
Corporate welfare and tax cuts for the rich doesn't translate into the "trickling down" of economic benefits to the peons. It just increases the gap between the obscenely wealthy and the poor.

John E puffed and spewed forth this question for me:

“John W,

What were you saying to your fellow Wingnuts when they nearly doubled the National dept (sic) going from $5 Trillion to $9.5 Trillion in a little under six years?”

The answer:

I was furious, John E., and I let them know it. I said, “Wing-nuts ('cause we pronounce hyphens) unite! Toss out and cast forth that D****d tax and spend good for nothing, and let us tolerate this no more!” That is what I said.

and then John E puffed again and asked:

“I'm guessing that you were still running your mouth to everyone who would listen that the Dems were going to make us go broke if they ever came to power, huh?”

to which I reply:

Not quite. I said something more to the effect of, “We, as a party, must go back to fundamentals. We can’t have people like the tax and spend artists in Congress, be they Democrats or Republicans, and we can’t have a President like Duh’bya who is essentially asleep at the wheel on the subject of fiscal and institutional conservatism. We need a President who can veto attempts to spend us into oblivion; not one who gets us there. Because if we don’t, folks, then the Dems are going to take over, and then we will never be able to shrink government down to its appropriate, constitutional size.” That’s what I said – or words to that effect.

at which time John E then asked:

“I thought you were a "real conservative" not a Neocon?”

- to which I reply:

I am a real conservative. I believe the best government to have is the one that governs the least, spends the least but still gets its duties done – because it is the government that leaves us free. If that isn’t conservatism, I don’t know what is.

and then John E spewed forth nonsense as follows:

“I've got news for you "W", "real conservatives" are Democrats now days...so what does that make you?

Let me spell it out for you.. N-E-O-C-O-N...”

- to which I reply:

E – you haven’t got a clue. Democrats now days are committed to the politics of plunder. To be fair, so are many Republicans. This is what happens when you pander to the public by promising freebies like universal health care, pre-k child care, more welfare, more funding for schools, and so on. The idea for these plans comes from a condescending mind which assumes that government functionaries have more wisdom and, therefore, better plans for how people are to spend their money for their own benefit than they have themselves. So the government confiscates everyone’s money and redistributes it as it sees fit.

If Democrats were true conservatives, they would immediately vote to dump the entire welfare state system built up around the federal government – including but not limited to: AFDC, welfare block grants to the States, social security, medicare, medicaid and the federal prescription drug program. To the extent these programs are deemed worthwhile, they should be handed over to the States for administration. Then they (i.e. those plucky conservative Democrats) would start dismantling large portions of the federal government, like the Department of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, and all other agencies designed to do what the States are competent to do for themselves. This is known as federalism – which is a very conservative ideology. But I won’t hold my breath waiting for any conservative Democrats to do any of this. Heck, I can’t even find a Democrat that’s a true liberal.

I guess when I talk about small government and less spending, my vision is for a government that is a whole lot less than apparently what you have in mind.

Oh, and the suggestion that I am a neo-con is patently ridiculous. I do not favor foreign intervention to export Democracy. I do not believe in restricting human, civil or other statutory or constitutional rights in the name of “safety” (like even some Democrats do, like Joe Biden). I don’t believe we solve any problems by throwing money at them. And I don’t believe the government has all the answers. People are a great deal more capable of looking after themselves without government intervention than either the Democrats or neo-cons think. In this, my politics are somewhere between that of Ron Paul and Barry Barry Goldwater. How do you get more conservative than that?

John W,

You don't have to rewrite my posts, we can read bozo.

Still waiting for you to explain how the Neocons, whom you support are going to be better for the American public financially than the Dems, when Wingnuts (you) already have been spending us into oblivion for the past six years?

Bring'em On "W"!

Bill R.

By "bits and pieces that put us in Iraq", do you mean all those quotes from prominent leaders of the democratic party?

Remember when W said "There are the "Haves" and then there are the "Have Mores" in this world? Thank God for the "Moores" in this world, --- We need "more" of them.

Seriously, who cares what this tub of goo has to say? He takes bits and pieces and puts together a movie that gets to the conclusion he desires.

Posted by: Terry | June 20, 2007 9:27 PM

Rush Limbaugh! Who cares what this tub of goo has to say? He takes bits and pieces and puts together a radio program that gets to the conclusion he desires.

But freedom and government do not and cannot occupy the same space. Government is essentially organized force to compel compliance with rules. The more govenment there is, the more laws and regulations we have which limit an individual’s discretion to act freely in situations covered by the law. Thus, by definition, the more laws and government there are, the less freedom we have. This is what was meant by the saying, “The government that governs least, governs best.”

What a load of Sh&@.
"But freedom and government do not and cannot occupy the same space"

Without government you have anarchy. With anarchy you have chaos and less freedom, and no one to protect what freedoms you do have.

Saying that "the government that governs least, governs best", is not the same as saying one is contradictory to the other.

No one wants intrusive government (Except Bush and Cheney). That's why we have rights as defined in the constitution, you know, the ones that above mentioned individuals are trying to do away with. I don't want the NSA conducting warrantless wiretaps or inquiring into what book I check out from the library. But I'm not counting on those idiots who run stop lights in intersections to use their "individual discretion to act freely in situations covered by the law". If there is no one to enforce the law, the law itself is rendered meaningless.

Without government you also have no regulation. Yeah, I know you like that, cowboy. But ask yourself, what your drinking water be like without government regulation?

We've seen how well private industry adheres to "voluntary compliance" of non-polluting ordinances.

Yeah, lets get rid of government and go back to the wild, wild west. John W. and his survivalist friends will protect us from foreign threats, maintain our infrastructure, protect our environment, shoot the indigent and crippled who can't fend for themselves, (like they would a lame horse), ensure orderly development of land and resources.

Have you ever heard one of those John Birchers cry about zoning regulations? When I did my internship in city planning, I sure did. Boy, do they ever change their tune when it's their neighbor parking the double-wide next to their beautifully restored Victorian home.

Are you a John Bircher, John W?
Checked to see if any one's messing with your "precious bodily fluids" lately?

dt:

You are clueless and insufferably ignorant.

I never suggested we should have no government, or that government wasn’t needed to some degree. Go back and re-read the post you criticized. In it, I said: “The noblest and highest goal of any society or government is to make people "free." Did you see the “or government ” part? Later, I stated: “This is what was meant by the saying, ‘The government that governs least, governs best.’” One does not endorse a statement about the kind of government that “governs best” if one believes that no government is best. How did you miss this stuff?

You also misunderstood what I stated when I wrote: “freedom and government do not and cannot occupy the same space.” I did not state, as you suggest, that freedom and government repel each other, or that they cannot exist side by side. I stated they “cannot occupy the same space” in the sense that the one displaces the other. This is no more remarkable than suggesting that rocks falling into a pond will displace water. In the same manner, government control will always displace the individual discretion needed to exercise freedom in a given area.

Nor did I ever suggest that some loss of discretion or freedom is bad. For example, no one would suggest that laws against homicide are bad because they limit one’s freedom to kill others. Those same laws enhance everyone’s freedom by protecting life – without which there would be no freedom. Governments are supposed to protect us from each other. My gripe is with too much government, and not the existence of government itself.

You also falsely state that, “No one wants intrusive government (Except Bush and Cheney).” This is horse manure. Out of the forty nine Democratic Senators in 2001, forty seven of them voted for the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act would have failed in the House of Representatives if all Democrats there voted against it. Instead, forty three voted for it, and three didn’t vote at all – which insured its passage. And what about the Democrat Sponsored “Communications Decency Act” which was signed into law by Democrat President Bill Clinton – but later found to violate the First Amendment by a unanimous Supreme Court? I can give numerous examples of how both parties, over the years, have engaged in not only intrusive government, but oppressive government to boot. Live with it.

Do yourself and the rest of us a couple of favors: 1) Learn to read properly; and then 2) go to the library and give yourself an education.

Cathy,

Only Rush's conclusions have logic behind them.

J.W.,
I'm not ducking you, just been busy today. Check back tomorrow and I'll give you a (respectful) response. Peace.

P.S. How do you get the characters in bold? It translates must less hysterical that capital letters, me thinks. Now excuse me while I run off to the library, hee, hee.

John W.,

Masquerading as a man with a reason
My charade is the event of the season
And if I claim to be a wise man
It surely means that I don't know (Kansas)

That was just meant to be an icebreaker.

First of all John, let me say I agree with many of the things you say. (That is meant to be an olive branch).

That being said, let me explain about my admittedly confrontational response to your government opinion piece.

I spent fifteen years in a small, rural town, mostly during the Bush 41, Clinton years. In my encounters with the folks there, I was reminded almost daily how government was evil, worthless, and unbearably cumbersome. Yet these same people were benefiting greatly from federal programs that subsidized their crops, help then get competitive loans, etc.

I certainly have had enough experience with government to know of its inefficiencies, red tape, and so on. So I understand peoples frustration. What I don't like is the constant inference, particularly from conservatives, that government is totally worthless, if not evil. Ditto with taxes. Both serve a vital function and are necessary components in our society. Even after Republicans have controlled government the past several years (and increased the size and scope of government, I might add), Bush, Cheney, and others in the administration talk about government as if they're outsiders. I find this terribly disingenuous.

I agree with you that in most cases, where government is concerned, less is better. I don't, however, think that we can depend on the private sector and the insane world of market manipulation to solve all the country's problems and provide all it's needs. Nor do I think that total state control is the answer. In some of your statements I've felt that you've labeled people as @#$ "socialist" unfairly. The best government, in my opinion, is a hybrid of capitalist ideals and socialist concepts. Unbridled capitalism is not the end all and ignores the needs of many. Plus, the last several years have seen a trend away from anti-trust enforcement and the re-emergence of oligopolies. I really do believe we're headed toward a new "gilded age" (and I didn't use that term because Obama introduced it recently).

O.K., already I'm being more "winded" than I intended, but, given the length of some of your novellas, I'm guessing you'll understand.

Regarding our exchange above, I don't appreciate being called "clueless and insufferably ignorant, but since I lobbed a few inflammatory remarks myself, I won't take it personally. Admittedly, I was a bit testy yesterday. Chalk it up to disgust and frustration. Disgust because John D. was being a horses ass toward Janet and Catherine, and frustration because two post I made in response, that were not over the top, were either rejected, or lost in the blogosphere. Maybe that's a cop-out in the sense that it had nothing to do with your post. I do not believe, as another infamous blogger on the right repeats incessantly, that you are of a certain "ilk".

I guess it's no secret that dialog on the Swamp is a bit contentious these days. I credit at least two developments for that. First, the Rove-inspired "scorched-earth" politics. Statements like "you're either with us or against us" and "a vote for democrats is a vote for Bin Laden", does little to encourage rational debate or create a climate for compromise. Secondly, the preponderance of talk shows and slanted news programs that specialize in misinformation, sloganeering, and confrontation, are not quite what we need in this country. They're almost encouraging people to be partisan, inflammatory, and intellectually lazy.

Now that I've rambled way too long, let me cut to the chase on your above comments.

I've heard the expression that _____ and _____ "do not and cannot occupy the same space", in other context and more than once. I've heard it used literally and also in terms that suggest the two cannot coexist. You can call me ignorant if you want, but I took your statement to mean the latter, maybe partly due to my experience with unyielding libertarians. When you said "The more government there is, the more laws and regulations we have which limit an individuals discretion to act freely in situations covered by the law.", I took this to mean you were advocating a society based on co-operation, of free access and of democratic administration, sans government. Call it a leap in logic, as I think you often make in some of your "intellectual exercises", or call it a simple misunderstanding. Sure, I succumbed to using hyperbole and epithets to emphasize a point. I'm not excusing that behavior, but you've got to understand John, that many people would read your post and conclude that you are 1) someone who likes to engage in pointless arguments that deliberately confuse the bigger issue. Then play semantic games when someone calls you on it.

2)Got some perverse pleasure in writing thesis papers in school and decided to use this forum as an exercise.

When I made the statement:“No one wants intrusive government (Except Bush and Cheney).” I believe you know by "no one", I meant in the general public, and that I mentioned Bush and Cheney in the same breath merely to protest their shameless power grab.

Of course I realize that this administration is not the only one to take the elitist position that its citizens are congenitally incapable of having enough rights to exist without coercion.

But when you use the example of the "Patriot Act" as evidence of democratic complicity, you fail to take into account 1) That the republicans did not ask for democratic input on the legislation 2)They dumped it in there lap in the middle of the night and sought to ram it through without sufficient discussion 3)They, in effect, took advantage of national sentiment after a castastrophy to paint democrats in a corner. First they labeled the legislation the "Patriot Act", deliberately I'm sure, so that they could label those opposed as "non-patriots". And, in fact, some in the Bush administration and some republicans in congress went so far as to say that to vote against the "Patriot Act" was to be a traitor. Call it politics, but I call it b.s.

As far as the second vote, one extending the act, while this bill was less objectionable, I do think the dems were cowards not to demand more changes. But, I also don't think people ever expected the Patriot Act to be extended indefinitely, at least I didn't.

Finally (thank god), when you say:"I can give numerous examples of how both parties, over the years, have engaged in not only intrusive government, but oppressive government to boot. Live with it".

Well, I'm sure you can. And, given our ongoing corporatocracy, I likely will. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to bitch about it. That's the whole reason I'm on this blog. Maybe my efforts won't make a difference, but I don't want anyone to accuse me of sitting idly by while the government runs amok. Until they kill me or bury me in Gitmo, I will put up a fight.

Enjoy your week-end John W. It's been a pleasure exchanging novellas with you. (Not really, I'd rather be watching a bad B movie. But hey, I promised a response and I did the best I could to deliver, given the crippling limitations of my "insufferable ignorance" and cluelessness). Peace.

John W,

An interesting article in this Friday's USA Today re. that "tub of goo" friend of yours. You should really see "Canadian Bacon".

dt:

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I take back what I said about you being clueless and “intolerably” ignorant. You’re still ignorant – but, hey, aren’t we all?

If you like B movies, and especially bad ones, then may I suggest “Teenagers From Outer Space.” It is THE worst and THE most unintentionally funny flick ever made. Just imagine a ray gun that turns people into educational, science class skeletons, latches included. Great stuff. Mystery Science Theater 3000 had a field day with it.

I, too, understand your frustration with people who don’t think government has any useful purpose. I am not a fan of popular libertarianism because I can’t see how anyone could expects to accomplish more than chaos by refusing to enforce rules.

I didn’t get my political views from a book. I developed my profound mistrust of government from having spent most of my adult life defending people against the federal and State governments. The one truth that profoundly impressed me the most is that people in government will act as oppressively and as unlawfully as they can for as long as they are allowed to do so. I also learned that we have too many laws that destroy too many lives, and that governments leave people vulnerable by inducing them to rely on promises the government can’t keep. I can tell some true horror stories. However, I won’t because I know how much you cherish brevity.

Put simply, I don’t trust big government because I can’t trust the people who run it. Jefferson, Madison and Washington – who are my ideological heroes – felt exactly the same way. Their influence on the Constitution, which provides for only “limited government” on the federal level, reflects this mistrust. They wouldn’t buy into a government run universal health plan for that very reason.

I disagree that I have ever unfairly labeled anyone a socialist. Socialism covers a lot more than just Marxism. Many people believe in socialism today, and probably don’t know that it is socialism.

Finally (and I know you are relieved) – I don’t think I miss the big points. The size of government is always the big point because it always determines the “freedom” quotient. It used to be the issue in the U.S. government's early years; that, and the constitutionality of any given law.

P.S. to make words bold, you have to use the HTML tag for bold before and after the part you want in bold. The first tag consists of the left pointing angle bracket (above the comma on you keyboard), then the letter B, then the right pointing angle bracket (above the period). The closing tag is the same except there is a right-leaning slash "/" before the B. See if that helps. If it doesn't, maybe I can scrounge up a web page to help.

John E:

You are silly and ignorant.

I'm not rewriting your posts. I'm rubbing your nose in them.

You mistakenly believe (again) that I will vote for a neo-con. I'wont.

I will vote for anyone for any office (toward which my vote counts) who executes a policy of fiscal and institutional conservatism. I will not vote for anyone who doesn't. The choice will never depend on party labels.

John W.,

Thanks for leaving room for some middle ground. I respect that you care enough to put some thought into your post, even if I don't always agree. Also thanks for the tip, I'm tech. challenged, but I'll try and figure it out.

Re. my aversion to "novellas". It's not the length of the post I'm reading that bothers me, it's the reciprocating.

It feels too much like one of those writing intensive, liberal ed. classes in college that you work your ass off for a measly three credits.

That's o.k. though. I don't mind so much if I come away with a better understanding of the issue or the person I'm addressing.

Now, to a lighter subject. I saw a real gross-out sci-fi "b" movie last night, certain to become a cult classic. It's called Slither. I can best describe this movie as a cross between the Body Snatchers, Night of the Living Dead, Monty Python, and maybe The Howling. I don't think the directors were necessarily trying to be camp, but I found it hilarious.

Anyway, take care. I'll see you again in the "war room".

John W,

I meant to add that as "ignorant" as I am, my shortcomings pale in comparison to Leno's Jay-walk all-stars. It's truly embarrassing to see these people, many of whom claim to be enrolled in college, display less knowledge of the world than my 9 year-old grandson.

I guess that's what they mean by the "dumbing down" of America. Now it all makes sense, how Bush 43, arguably the worst president ever, got reelected. I think the world is laughing at us.

dt:

I am ignorant too. We are all "ignorant" because there is always something we don't know. It is not a shame to be ignorant. It is only a shame to stay ignorant when the facts stare us in the face.

In the case of school kids, it isn't always the kids who are ignorant or incapable. It is often their teachers and school districts that lead them astray by not exercise plain common sense in giving kids the tools to grow.

In my opinion, kids don’t do as well in school because they can’t grasp the values needed to learn. Some of this is the schools’ fault. But a lot of it comes from the lack of any direction at home – and the same direction from school is a poor substitute. Seeing grown-ups reading and writing and enjoying themselves - rather than watching the tube - is a way for kids to learn that learning skills are fun and important. I grew up in a home stacked full of books. My parents each spoke several languages and wrote a lot of letters. As a result, I was always well ahead in reading and writing skills. [Don't judge by what you see here. You tend to see too many first drafts.]

The dumbing down you see is a dangerous cultural failure from the loss of these values. Without a proper education, people do not think as hard about their world and their lives as they ought to. And, yes, it also leads to a distorted perception of civil rights and political traditions - such that it is possible to re-elect Dubya and all those Socialists! ; )