Canyon of Zeroes

06Oct11

The recent news of the “occupation” of Wall Street has gotten our attention. Of course, to hear Fox News tell it, it is a vast conspiracy of the Democratic Party and Obama. They may be correct, it certainly is disorganized. That is a clear hallmark of the Democratic party. One might wonder why this location and not somewhere like, say, Washington DC? This image above pretty much says it all. Obviously these protestors want to send a message to the real decision makers and not the hired help who have already proven their incompetency.

It is also interesting to note that, unlike Tea Party gatherings, no one in this crowd seems to have an automatic weapons strapped to their legs. So what to make of this? Of the variety of messages that are gushing forward, one message is pretty clear; The status quo is unacceptable. The question is how to change it to the greatest benefit.

Advertisements


75 Responses to “Canyon of Zeroes”

  1. 1 1george1

    Jeze,
    Great graphics!
    Where do you steal .. ehr … find them?

    I was trying to see if the art work resembled
    anyone?

    Jeze, I have to tease you about “relevancy”
    What is the blog name?
    Stratfordcharter?

    Oooop I remebered the KEY?
    Who is the blogmeister/blogmadam? Jeze
    It’s Jeze’s darn Blog….

    Word play on pros & cons

    CONgress
    PROgress

    CONstitution
    PROstitution

    CONtract
    PROtract

    CONcede
    PROceed

    CONcession
    PROcession

    CONduct
    PROduct

    The stuff Cheney, Bush, Rockefellers, and the other insiders
    pulled in both parties are exactly the way the Robber Barons
    built the Railroads

    Congress appoints most Military Academy = political patroned

    Congress gave land to RR, who used West Point engineers

    RR used stock markets to monetize land for money to pay for
    the materials and labor, and loot.

    Stock markets and financial houses, like Rockefeller owned
    Brown Brothers Harriman donate to Congress.

    The music plays
    The player change
    The game continues

  2. 2 jezebel282

    George,

    “It’s Jeze’s darn Blog”

    You got that right!

  3. 3 1george1

    🙂

  4. 4 ronmoreau

    Jez,
    Maybe George isn’t really off the mark.

    http://donpesci.blogspot.com/2011/10/is-delauro-self-dealing.html

  5. 5 1george1

    Hi Ron,
    I read that blog 1 – 2 days ago?

    Other examples

    A few years ago, Congress passed a LAW that affected
    Dianon Stock. It dropped from the equivalent of 60 to 40.
    That is 1/3rd of it’s value.

    I am pretty sure CA Senator Diane Fienstein’s husband
    owns an investment company.
    Maybe 1 – 2 months after the Dianon drop, his firm bought
    like million(s) of shares of Dianon.
    A couple months later, Congress passed a LAW that affected
    Dianon Stock. It increased to the equivalent of 60 from 40.
    That is a 50 % price increase.
    At 1 million shares – a $ 20 increase is $ 20 million.
    2 million shares =

    Dick Cheney had to resign as President/CEO of Halliburton
    to run for VP. He cashed out his stocks in 2000.
    I wonder if Cheney had future OPTIONS in his BLIND TRUST?
    Why?
    Halliburton owned Dresser.
    Dresser lost an ASBESTOS suit and LOST 80 % of it’s VALUE.
    > LUCKY TIMING to have SOLD Halliburton STOCK

    Halliburton was a MAJOR BENEFICIARY of the IRAQ WAR.
    > IF Cheney had very low cost STOCK OPTIONS in his BLIND
    TRUST …. and IF THOSE OPTIONS expired like in 2004 when
    HALLIBURTON was MAKING BIG MONEY from the WAR
    and if STOCK ANALYSTS PROJECTIONS boosted Halliburton’s
    stock price,…..

    I strongly suspect this is the WAY the ENTIRE SENATE works
    and has worked for Centuries

    These examples are not meant to pick on powerful people who
    are Jewish (Feinstien) or married to Jewish (DeLauro) or parent
    -/grandparent was Jewish (Cheney) (according to Charley Rose)

    Al Gore (algorithm) became worth more than $ 100 million after
    losing his election.

    I can’t think of other examples – but there are tons of them.
    It doesn’t matter what the skin color is or the ethnic or religious
    back ground ….. people are bought and sold like guilded slaves
    > Malcolm Forbes airplane was named “Capitalist Tool.”
    > GE CEO Neitron Jack Welch “happened” to RETIRE ABOUT
    1 WEEK before 9/11/2001. GE Finance owns virtually ALL of the AIRPLANES of all of the AIRLINES – GE stock destroyed by 9/11.

    Same way Wall Street executives were bribed with $ 750 BILLION
    T.A.R.P. to not disclose where the OIL MONEY went – all of the
    KEY POLITICIANS and GENERALS / WHATEVER are given the
    “JOE KENNEDY JACK POT!”
    – What’s that?
    They are given $ 10 to $ 20 million advance for a BOOK DEAL,
    to SET THEM UP FINANCIALLY, and then absurd amounts of
    money for Public Speaking or ghost written stuff – and the BIG
    OIL or other DEEP POCKET SURROGATES have their people
    BUY ENOUGH BOOKS to make the “NY TIMES BEST SELLER
    LIST!” This gets the Literari sheep, who “have to read” the “IN
    – INFORMATION” boost the SALES and ROYALTIES.

  6. 6 1george1

    Value of Cheney 2000 cash out of Halliburton Stock,
    noted above post? $ 40,000,000

  7. 7 jezebel282

    “NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — The percentage of Americans who owned their homes has seen its biggest decline since the Great Depression, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

    The rate of home ownership fell to 65.1 percent in April 2010, 1.1 percentage points lower than it was in 2000. The decline was the biggest drop since the 1930s, when home ownership plunged 4.2 percent.
    Read more: http://www.wdsu.com/money/29414921/detail.html#ixzz1a5tqi1bP

    And yet the average 30 year mortgage has dropped below 4%. But with 16 MILLION Americans out of work (and growing) food becomes more of a priority.

    Smuckers (Jiff peanut butter) and Conagra (Skippy) have announced price increases of 30% in November. Now the poor can have jelly sandwiches if they can still afford the bread. Who needs protein?

    In contrast, Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) took to the Senate floor yesterday and declared that the way to create more jobs is to eliminate all regulation of private industry and help the “job creators” prosper. (Relax, Orrin. Here, have a piece of cantaloupe.)

    Excuse me while I check my transit map and see which subway line from Grand Central goes to Chambers Street.

  8. 8 jezebel282

    Ron,

    “Maybe George isn’t really off the mark.”

    And who’s fault is that? Have the Republicans come up with a serious candidate in the last couple of decades? Wait, let me guess, if Rosa is opposed by anyone will the GOP candidate be forced to sign some stupid pledge? Carry a gun? Promise to make abortions illegal? Eliminate Medicare or Social Security?

  9. 9 1george1

    Jeze,
    Are my wild and crazy conspiracy theories as wild and crazy
    as Republican’ts & Demon-crats at Federal, State, & Local
    levels’ actual policies and malfeasance.

    How many expected to be on the Town Council, Zoning, BoE,
    are people you would trust with your wallet?

    Here’s an idea that I think most of us would agree with:
    ALL EMS VOLUNTEERS who live in TOWN would be made
    into members of the Town Council, Zoning, and BoE,
    > EXCEPT
    Those people who have been on any of those or have sued
    the Town?
    – Gavin & Bob Calzone were elected in past
    – Best suing Town

    This is my diplomatic way of not taking sides in the EMS mess
    while respecting Bob & Gavin, they were part of the problem
    per political decisions.
    – Great people – no reflection on that.
    > If I am blaming everyone in the past for OMERTA / BLUE WALL
    I can’t make exceptions.

  10. 10 jezebel282

    As we watch the Occupy Wall Street protests (against what?) day after day, it occurred to us that 80 years ago during the Depression these were called “bread lines” and “Hoovervilles”. Since we do not have breadlines anymore (the unemployed do not qualify for welfare) and Hoover is long dead, we have “Occupy Wall Street”.

    It is simply a sign of anger. Mortgage rates are at historic lows (4.12%) but if you are unemployed and your credit rating has taken a hit, you don’t qualify for a refinance that would save you hundreds of dollars per month.

  11. 11 sudds

    “Since we do not have breadlines anymore (the unemployed do not qualify for welfare) and Hoover is long dead, we have “Occupy Wall Street”.”

    Hmm… I don’t recall my grandmother ever speaking about her having a $5,500 mac book (ok… ANY $50 item, by 1930’s standards) while waiting in a breadline…

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/criminal_occupation_oh3CnKANUqYHrGPCaZaLRK#ixzz1b9aANgkb

  12. 12 sudds

    WAIT!!! I found someone who “has been living on free meals and boarding”…

    http://www.sodahead.com/living/should-trust-fund-babies-occupy-wall-street/question-2226461/

  13. 13 jezebel282

    Sudds,

    “I don’t recall my grandmother ever speaking about her having a $5,500 mac book”

    I’m glad you checked everyone’s financials before making that comment. Obviously, they all have highly paid jobs and just want to sleep in the rain. I also heard, although it is still an unconfirmed rumor, that unemployed people still have birthdays.

    But keep up the good work. I am dying to know if any of their relatives still celebrate Christmas.

  14. 14 sudds

    My point is that you’re just being laughable Jez!

    Comparing “occupy [fill in the blank]” to breadlines is like comparing the killing of the 50+ released zoo animals in Ohio to the Holocaust!!!

    (and before you get p/o’d because I used the Jewish sacred word… relax… my point is that you can NOT compare them!!!)

  15. 15 1george1

    Sudds

    Homelessness, Foreclosures, unemployment, underemployment
    are serious matters to tens of millions of people.

    Theft & decimation of portfolios and real estate property values
    are serious matters to tens of millions of people.

    If your neighbor is out of work,
    It is a recession
    If YOU are out of work,
    it is a DEPRESSION.

    It all depends whose OX is GORED.

  16. 16 jezebel282

    Sudds,

    “My point is that you’re just being laughable Jez!”

    Spoken like a gainfully employed Republican.

  17. 17 sudds

    “Spoken like a gainfully employed Republican.”

    Who you callin’ a Republican??? I’m an (I) baby!!!

    And it’s laughable because this person is complaining about having her MacBook stolen at OWS… where she is protesting Corporate greed… while Apple was reporting record profits!!! Apparently this nimrods want to protest only again certain company’s corporate greed!!! 😛

  18. 18 jezebel282

    Sudds,

    “while Apple was reporting record profits!!!”

    Maybe Apple didn’t lay her off or holds her mortgage?

  19. 19 jezebel282

    Sudds,

    Do you also think the entire middle class (whose existence at all Portia will dispute) should be happy about the largest drop in the U.S. standard of living since the start of keeping those data?

  20. 20 sudds

    Does anyone (I surely do not) recall anything about children being molested at Tea Party Events???

    http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/10/24/accusations-of-teen-runaway-sexual-activity-at-occupy-dallas/

  21. 21 jezebel282

    Sudds,

    “Does anyone (I surely do not) recall anything about children being molested at Tea Party Events???”

    No. But they ARE Texans after all. Usually they just start wars.

  22. 22 sudds

    “But they ARE Texans after all.”

    Hmmm… good point… most incest DOES go unreported!!! 😆

  23. 23 portia1776

    Jez,

    My thoughts on the anrco-communazi “OWS” movement will have to wait for another day.

    I have been busy exposing how Greenspan, Fuller, Gombar, and the entire DTC slate refuses to acknowledge a single Miron mistake. Of course, the way to avoid future mistakes is to learn from what was done wrongly in the past. Voters have no reason to trust that Democrats will make good decisions going forward — mostly because they did not even make the pretense of providing one.

    But getting back to this blog’s purpose, you know, national politics…..

    Do you agree that national government financial regulators are needed to protect consumers from themselves?

    Assuming that you do, is it right to believe you approve of Dodd-Frank 10.15.1 “Prohibition against Unfair, Deceptive or Abusive Acts or Practices,” which empowers the CFPB to “take action to prevent a Covered Person or a service provider from committing or engaging” in such activity?

    Would you described your reaction to Bank of America’s entirely predictable $5 fee as outraged?…

    Do you deny the predictability of many of Dodd-Frank’s intended and unintended negative consequences, resulting from increasing the powers of the national government to command-and-control the economy? And thus reject assigning culpability to Dodd-Frank for how “a whopping 60% more bank accounts carry fees and balance requirements than a year ago and the top 5 banks are planning on levying $3 billion in new fees for 2012” (according to ING Bank)?

    I have an amazingly obvious disclosure to make, but will wait until you go on the record.

  24. 24 1george1

    Portia, you must own a lot of ROCKEFELLER BUSH controlled
    OIL & WAR MACHINE STOCKS to give them a completely FREE
    PASS while bashing the buttheads in office now and in the past
    that are not part of your gang.
    .
    .
    .
    Some said the ONLY Difference between the REPUBLICANS
    and the DEMOCRATS is that the DEMOCRATS pretend to
    CARE about the PEOPLE whose lives are destroyed by their
    POLICIES ….
    .
    .
    .
    The end has come for the Elephant and Jack Ass to be pack
    animal symbols of the political parties
    .
    .
    One group are political plundering parasitic puppets
    The other group are vile viscious villainous vultures

  25. 25 jezebel282

    Portia,

    I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but sometimes your passion gets the better of your writing skills.

    I’m not exactly sure what you are asking me to take a position on. If it is Dodd-Frank, the amazingly weak financial “regulation” law, and Bank of America fees my position is that the free market convinced BOA to drop their ridiculous fee for using your own money. Customers left BOA in droves. Isn’t that the way you said it should be? For some reason, charging exorbitant fees to merchants for the privilege of swiping a customer’s debit card makes running a small business a LOT harder, don’t you think?

    It is obvious that banks are seeking other ways to generate revenue than the way banks have done it for hundreds of years; by lending money. I doubt that has anything to do with Dodd-Frank other than taking their client’s money to the casino. Wanna buy a credit default swap?

    As for OWS, as far as I can tell it is a protest of disgust. Most of the participants rail against the crony capitalism you often rant against and their hired guns in Congress. I’m actually surprised your not down there with them.

    “national government to command-and-control the economy?”
    I’m not quite as willing to dip my writing brush into the same can of fiery rhetoric as you do. I’m thinking that charging 30%+ percent on a credit card balance simply because your back office is in North Dakota would still be classified by most people as usury. And should be.

    We already know what happens if the free market is completely unregulated. Planes crash, food is unsafe, children enter the labor market instead of schools, employees work in unsafe conditions, no one knows what is in the products they buy and people get sick, injured or die. Nice.

  26. 26 1george1

    My POLITICAL OPINIONS:

    Just as there should be a well regulated militia, so too should there
    be a well regulated economy.

    NOT OVER REGULATED.
    NOT PARTISANLY REGULATED (too loosely or too strictly)

    It really does matter what type of system is used.
    ANY SYSTEM can work.
    ANY SYSTEM can be WORKED or GAMED …
    .
    Someone like TOM MALLOY is the PERSONIFICATION of the
    FAILURE of MARKET and GOVERNMENT, by people who are
    SOOOO SMART, they lack COMMON SENSE and EMPATHY
    for the COMMON MAN & WOMAN.

    Someone LIKE KUBIC who will be the NEXT TOWN COUNCIL
    CHAIRMAN – I FEAR – is devoid of COMPASSION and EMPATHY
    for those people, who can not benefit him … in my opinion….
    .
    That is the way of the RepubliCONNartists.
    .
    If it isn’t their agenda . they become the RepubliCAN’Ts.
    .
    Then we have Mario Testa – Dick Miron friends who personify
    DEMON-c-RATS.

    As far as I am concerned BRIDGEPORT & FAA want to expand
    the RUNWAY to be able to bring CO CAINE directly from Columbia,
    or maybe with an ISLAND HOP…?

  27. 27 portia1776

    George,

    This untrue jibe is beneath you.

    You, of all people, should be asking questions at a time like this. “Let the ruling classes tremble,” wrote Marx and Engels in their Manifesto. But the political ruling class — President Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Ben Bernanke — are not trembling over OWS nor are they attacking OWS as they did the “crazy, racist, violent, astro-turf” Tea Party. They are supporting the crazy, racist, violent, astro-turf OWS!

    Before Jez complains that I have mischaracterized OWS, take a gander at who is participating in or is standing in solidarity with this collectivist movement of the damned: Communist Party USA, American Nazi Party, Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, North Korea, Hugo Chavez, David Duke, Communist Party of China, 9/11 Truth, Hezbollah, White Revolution, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Revolutionary Communist Party (http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2011/10/31/the-99-official-list-of-ows/ ).

    The list of villainous bed fellows goes on, but doesn’t tell us much. The fact is this isn’t a real protest movement. The majority of its members are down for chilling in the park at least until they’re really chilling, but not for ending civilization as we know it.

    Sure, some of the more deluded members of the OWS “Central Committee” (now where have I heard that designation before? Any ideas, Jez?), people like Harrison Shultz, an “OWS organizer” according to MSNBC, believe

    “The movement down here is incredibly exciting. It’s incredibly exhilarating. And, ah, honestly, my opinion as a professional sociologist, I think that this is the beginning of a revolution in this country…. We are all here for change. We all want something different. We all want something better. As far as the specifics, as far as how we go about doing that, we don’t know yet. Part of the problem, I think, part of the issue is that a lot of the people that are here are in fact anarchists, are in fact revolutionaries. And putting a revolution, putting a revolutionary change into political terms, is very difficult to do. Because we’re trying to get away from all the problems. Again, we don’t really want to fix them: it’s revolution, not reform (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwT8RC0_Ru0 ).”

    Truer words from an Obama Democrat have seldom been spoken.

    But that’s not really going to happen. The majority of OWSers are narcissistic posers and, truth be told, rather dull. They regurgitate gibberish against “evil” corporations they “learned” from posh pseudo-revolutionaries at college, Inc., on social media networks invented by Twitter, Inc. and Facebook, Inc., accessed on wifi or cell phone networks created by telecommunications, Inc., and on iPhones and laptops made by Apple Inc., all the while dressed in designer clothes and accessories that earn them attention in… the fashion section of the New York Times, Inc. (A joke is in there somewhere).

    Is the point really that borrowing $200,000 to major in sociology was a really stupid thing to do? (No it wasn’t. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have needed four, five, six or more years of bar hopping, cribbing papers from the genius down the hall, and cheating on the exams to figure that out).

    Maybe the point is to oppose politicians getting campaign contributions from Wall Street? But in that case these kiddies need to take “math skills” off their resumes, assuming they have resumes. The national government is the biggest pig around, yearly consuming $2.17 trillion taxpayer dollars and $1.65 trillion borrowed dollars, and spending $3.82 trillion dollars. Politicians get contributions because they control how all those trillions are spent and how laws and regulations are written and enforced.

    If you’re running a highly leveraged investment bank that might need a government bailout someday or operating a monopolistic union whose survival is dependent on government coercing members to pay dues and taxpayers to pay pensions and health benefits, contributing to presidential, congressional, and senatorial campaigns makes a lot of sense.

    Reducing the influence of Wall Street is necessary and easy. Eliminate corporate taxes and welfare, forswear bailouts, and raise interest rates — none of which President Barack “I’ve received more money from Wall Street than any politician in history” Obama will ever do.

    The Greater Boston Tea Party has created a chart that outlines the areas of agreement and disagreement between OWS and the Tea Party. I don’t necessarily agree, but found it satisfactory enough to pass along.

    First the areas of agreement:
    “WE HAVE A PROBLEM!
    GOVERNMENT COLLUSION WITH SPECIAL INTERESTS IS AN OUTRAGE!
    GOVERNMENT SHOULDN’T GIVE SPECIAL TREATMENT TO FAVORED INTERESTS!
    THE BAILOUTS WERE WRONG!
    LET’S TAKE TO THE STREETS!”

    Then the areas of disagreement:
    “OCCUPY WALL STREET vs. THE TEA PARTY

    Break The System vs. Fix The System
    We should be bailed out too! vs. Nobody should be bailed out!
    Get money out of politics vs. Get politics out of money
    We deserve other people’s money vs. People deserve to keep what they earn
    We need to keep spending money we don’t have vs. We need to stop spending money we don’t have
    The solution is to increase govt power. vs. The solution is to decrease govt power
    Tax those evil rich fat cats into oblivion vs. We’re taxed enough already.
    Replace the Constitution vs. Restore the Constitution
    Occupy Wall Street (almost 3000 arrested) vs. Tea Party Members (arrests?)”
    http://greaterbostonteaparty.com/

  28. 28 portia1776

    Jez,
     
    “I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but sometimes your passion gets the better of your writing skills.” – Time constraints, more than passion. But if the anarchists are true anarchists, they won’t hold me to the societal constraints of “correct” spelling. Jeez, Jez, who knew anarcho-communazis were so touchy!
     
    “I’m not exactly sure what you are asking me to take a position on.” — I wanted you to answer the questions because this example is illustrative.
     
    Dodd-Frank caused banks across the country to raise fees to recoup lost revenue due to regulatory compliance costs. If you deny this, the burden of proof is on you to explain why the vast majority of Americans who were not paying fees before Dodd-Frank are paying fees now. You also need to explain away all the people like me who predicted Dodd-Frank and its Durbin price fixing amendment would hurt consumers by increasing costs.
     
    When one of the largest banks decided to follow suit, President Obama held up Bank of America’s $5 fee as “exactly why we need somebody whose sole job it is to prevent this kind of stuff from happening.” But President Obama’s own CFPB is already empowered by Dodd-Frank to do just that — the CFPB is supposed to “Prohibit… Unfair, Deceptive or Abusive Acts of Practices.”
     
    I wanted to know whether you support this type of intervention in principle because what happened next is how government intervention almost always works in practice.
     
    The CFPB knew in advance about the Bank of America fee, which is to effectually say they approved it. Why would they approve the fee that President Obama would then use as an example of why we need the CFPB? We cannot know for sure. Raj Date, the current unelected head of this unaccountable bureaucracy, refused to disclose specifics when testifying before Congress last week, lest anyone think we still live in a Republic. But he did allow that banks don’t make those kinds of decisions anymore without CFPB involvement.
     
    So what’s really going on here? Adlai Stevenson said that Nixon “is the kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree, then mount the stump and make a speech for conservation.” Now we know that President Obama is the kind of politician who would have his regulators approve a fee on Bank of America customers, then mount the airwaves to cite the fee as justification for greater government regulatory protection for consumers. Nice.
     
    “If it is Dodd-Frank, the amazingly weak financial ‘regulation’ law,” — So I guess you support repeal? After all, if it’s so “amazingly weak,” Americans will be better off without the unaccountable and apparently unnecessary bureaucrats at the CFPB drawing salaries, right? If you prefer to be charitable and think the Bank of America fee incident is an act of incompetence instead of malice, is that not still a very good reason to disband the bureau?
     
    “Bank of America fees my position is that the free market convinced BOA to drop their ridiculous fee for using your own money. Customers left BOA in droves. Isn’t that the way you said it should be? For some reason, charging exorbitant fees to merchants for the privilege of swiping a customer’s debit card makes running a small business a LOT harder, don’t you think?” — You’re right except it was the market force of individual consumers. We don’t have a free market or anything close to it in this country, hence the dismal state of our economy. The American economy has decreased in every measure of economic freedom over the last 10 years. If you think we do have a free market, try buying something that contains sugar. Government intervention has made sugar and everything that contains sugar more expensive for American consumers since 1816. Think of all the money wasted and all the better uses individual Americans could have put that money to.
     
    “I doubt that has anything to do with Dodd-Frank other than taking their client’s money to the casino.” — So it’s just a coincidence that 60% more bank accounts are facing fees this year than last year?
     
    “As for OWS, as far as I can tell it is a protest of disgust. Most of the participants rail against the crony capitalism you often rant against and their hired guns in Congress. I’m actually surprised your not down there with them.” — This is true. There is some overlap as documented in the chart in my previous post. The problem is with OWS’ “solutions.”

    As George Will put it:
     
    “Unfortunately for OWS, big government’s scandal du jour, the Obama administration’s Solyndra episode of crony capitalism, does not validate progressivism’s indignation; it refutes progressivism’s aspiration, which is for more minute government supervision of society. Solyndra got to the government trough with the help of a former bundler of Obama campaign contributions who was an Energy Department bureaucrat helping to dispense taxpayers’ money to politically favored companies. His wife’s law firm represented Solyndra. But, then, government of the sort progressives demand — supposed “experts,” wiser than the market, allocating wealth and opportunity by supposedly disinterested decisions — is not just susceptible to corruption, it is corruption. It is political favoritism with a clean (even green) conscience.
     
    Demands posted in OWS’s name include a “guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment”; a $20-an-hour minimum wage (above the $16 entry wage the United Auto Workers just negotiated with GM); ending “the fossil fuel economy”; “open borders” so “anyone can travel anywhere to work and live”; $1 trillion for infrastructure; $1 trillion for “ecological restoration” (e.g., re-establishing “the natural flow of river systems”); “free college education.”
     
    And forgiveness of “all debt on the entire planet period.” Progressivism’s battle cry is: “Mulligan!” It demands the ultimate entitlement — emancipation from the ruinous results of all prior claims of entitlement (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_idiocy_of_occupy_CzBSULoDQNsyc0EAPRoTAP ).”
     
    “I’m not quite as willing to dip my writing brush into the same can of fiery rhetoric as you do.” — Call these polices what you will, but the result is the same. We are getting less free and poorer by the day because of George “Hoover” Bush’s failed Big Government administration and Barack “Roosevelt” Obama’s failing Bigger Government administration.
     
    “I’m thinking that charging 30%+ percent on a credit card balance simply because your back office is in North Dakota would still be classified by most people as usury.” – The actual national average credit APR is 14.99%. For someone with bad credit, the average APR is 24.96%. Do you think a loan provider discriminating against someone with bad credit by charging a higher rate of interest due to the riskier nature of extending them credit is “usury” or “unfair”?
     
    The problem with your supposedly good intentions is that government policies designed to help those with bad credit end up increasing the interest rates of all borrowers. You think 30% is bad? How about the about 400% average annualized rate of payday loans? But 30% interest loans and payday loans still serve a societal need, one that doesn’t go away just because “Progressives” have supposedly good intentions to provide easy credit to all. Ban payday loans or make them harder to obtain by increasing (as the CFPB plans to) the regulatory compliance cost to lenders, and lower income Americans will be borrowing needed capital from the real usurers, the mafia, who will oblige with an average annualized rate of about 10,000% and break legs as a valid collection method.
     
    “We already know what happens if the free market is completely unregulated…” — Really, I would love to see your empirical evidence of this. But since it is impossible to prove a negative, let me save you the trouble. There is no such thing as a “completely unregulated free market.” It may be shocking for you to learn, but advocates of laissez-faire favor the strongest form of regulation. The question we ask is who should do the regulating? The answer is consumers. Consumers within a market vote every day with their business, thereby creating strong incentives for service providers to do right by their customers or face the consequences. This type of regulation handles the vast majority of transactions more efficiently and more efficaciously than bureaucracies with no incentive to do well and every incentive to be captured by the very industries they are supposed to regulate (BP’s campaign contributions and too cozy relationship with Obama and the Minerals Management Service before the Gulf disaster ring a bell?)
     
    Selling people spoiled food, subjecting your workers to unsafe conditions, killing your airline’s passengers are all bad for your soul as well as the bottom line. If the immense liability is not enough to dissuade you from doing wrong, last time I checked just about every activity you listed is also a crime, rightly addressed to a lawful judiciary. It is the proper role of government to maintain law and order. This would not change if our individual civil and economic liberties were restored — if there was again, as there should always be, a high wall of separation between economy and state. What would change is consumers would be empowered to undertake more regulating themselves. Private quality assurance organizations already do a better job than even the best government regulators. (I am sure you are well contended in the knowledge that while you sleep USDA inspectors are hard at work in every slaughtering facility in the country using their acutely trained eyeballs to detect microscopic pathogens. Anything microscopic is mighty hard to see, harder still when moving past you at a rate of 35 chickens per minute, which could possibly explain why nearly 9 million pounds of USDA inspected and approved for sale meat and poultry was recalled last year. Unfortunately, not before making tens of thousands of unsuspecting Americans sick. USDA approval is false advertising and does a disservice to consumers who would be better served by private inspectors).
     
    For reasons inexplicable given the evidence (how about Jim Crow, the Great Depression, Vietnam War, Stagflation, the Oil Crisis, Love Canal, and Solyndra), you think that all will be well if we just put our faith in government regulators. When the bureaucrats inevitably fail — when FDA inspected Grade A eggs and meat cause sickness, EPA mandated MTBE pollutes our bodies, the DoE stupefies generations of Americans, and the never-more-government-regulated-than-at-any-other-time-in-our-history economy collapses — your belief of rule by “benevolent” bureaucrats is unshaken. All they need, you confidently tell us, is more money and more power. Until the next round of failure and crisis, and the next, and the next, until we have neither freedom nor money left to sacrifice to your idol of “Progressive” government.
     
    But who, if not the government, you say? You, me, George, all of us by right have the freedom and responsibility to pursue our self-interest. Who better than you to know what constitutes a “good” deal or product, a “fair” interest rate or terms of employment, a “safe” activity? Who are you, or the bureaucrats acting on behalf of your supposedly good intentions, to say that a terminally sick patient can’t try a potentially lifesaving drug because it’s “unsafe” (what’s the worst that could happen?), a high school kid can’t get a job because their potential employer is prohibited from paying below “minimum wage” for the only job they are qualified for, an immigrant can’t open a hair braiding business without receiving an expensive cosmology license, we can’t fly commercial without sacrificing our Constitutional rights, senior citizens and the financially responsible can’t get a good rate of interest on their life’s savings.
     
    These are real situations suffered by millions of Americans right now. Not that you, the Obama administration, or OWS seem to care…

  29. 29 jezebel282

    Portia,

    I know I’ve attempted to respond to your manifestos before with little success in persuading you. I will give it another shot.

    “If you deny this, the burden of proof is on you to explain why the vast majority of Americans who were not paying fees before Dodd-Frank are paying fees now.”

    Ummm..banks are not lending money. Remember when their profits were derived from interest on loans? 30 year mortgage rates are currently at 4% yet the banks are not writing mortgages. Maybe it is because they are no longer guaranteed a profit by selling the loans to Fannie or Freddie. So if they do not make money the old fashioned way and cannot take your money to the casino how will they make a living? By charging fees to use your own money of course. But this is about how to make money, not government regulation so you will have no interest in this line of questions.

    “I wanted to know whether you support this type of intervention in principle”
    In principle, I believe that arbitrarily changing loan terms (even on unsecured loans) on money already borrowed should be illegal (as it now is). I also believe that an interest rate of 30% should be called “Loan sharking”, not “enhanced fees” because you have an office in North Dakota.

    “Do you think a loan provider discriminating against someone with bad credit by charging a higher rate of interest due to the riskier nature of extending them credit is “usury” or “unfair”?”

    Actually, those rates are legally defined as “usury” in 49 states. But if you lay off 15 million people, how many of them will develop “bad” credit without paychecks? I think the term is “kicking them while they’re down”.

    “the Bank of America fee incident is an act of incompetence instead of malice, is that not still a very good reason to disband the bureau?”
    Now that is a very interesting question. Do I think it was incompetence? No. I think it was arrogance. I would actually like to see consumers do the same thing to airlines that continue to charge baggage fees. However, back to BOA. If I recall correctly their fee for using your own money was supposed to begin in January 2012. I’m pretty sure someone has to actually pay the fee before they can complain. It would have been interesting to see what the CFPB would have done.

    “Really, I would love to see your empirical evidence of this.”
    Are you serious? Google “Triangle Shirt Waist Company”, anything that happened in West Virginia coal mines, railroad labor (make sure you add “+chinese or +Irish “), child labor +garment industry or even “lead paint”.

    “Consumers within a market vote every day with their business, thereby creating strong incentives for service providers to do right by their customers or face the consequences.”
    Sigh…really? Again? Do you even know what products you buy from Altria? Have a Miller Genuine Draft and a Marlboro and think about it. If it takes too long maybe you can go to Yum Brands and have one of their specialties. Do we really have to die before the rest of the market decides it’s probably not a good product?

    “last time I checked just about every activity you listed is also a crime, rightly addressed to a lawful judiciary.”
    Err…you want to check that again? It wouldn’t be a crime unless the government said it was. There are no crimes in your theory. Only market forces.

    Everything that emanates from government is not necessarily evil as you believe. Just as corporations, consumers and voters display their fare share of incompetence and stupidity so do government officials.
    It is when these government officials and elected representatives are coopted by corporations that we lose the purpose of government to represent the people. In that, I agree with you.

  30. 30 1george1

    George, This untrue jibe is beneath you.

    You, of all people, should be asking questions at a time like this.
    “Let the ruling classes tremble,”
    wrote Marx and Engels in their Manifesto.

    PORTIA: You have NOT properly identified the ruling class.

    MARX & ENGELS were simply counterpoints to the perversions
    of ADAM SMITH and aLEXis DeTOCQUEVILLE (DETOX EVIL)

    HITLER’S Mein Kampf, abbetted by British Agent Rudolph Hess
    has an interesting anti-American establishment chapter:
    “behind the Mask of Federalism”

    capITALYsm, COMMUNism, and FAUX socialism were secular
    counterpoints to OT + NT + REFORMATION & other variations
    of interpretations?
    V I Lenin or VILE NINCOMPOOP
    STALIN or anagram of LATINS
    HIT ler & hiro HIT o – chosen raised enemies?

    HA-MILTON’s FEDERALISM is a series of counter points to John
    MILTON’s PARADISE LOST, PARADISE REGAINS & other works.

    Is it coincidence or were there causal relationships to the rise
    of MAR(s)TIN luTHER (THOR) and WILLiAM SHAKEspeare
    after the SPANISH EXODUS, INQUISITION, & COLUMBUS voyage?
    .
    MARS = ROMAN WAR GOD + THOR = NORSE WAR GOD
    John BREAKspeare = ONLY British POPE

    ENGLAND privateers destroyed the SPANISH ARMADA
    AMERICAN MONROE DOCTRINE and later SPANISH AMERICAN
    WAR had the effect of placing Spanish & Portuguese southern
    and central american colonies to be in an effectual stasis, much
    like the WARSAW PACT.

    Within Churchill’s writings, Western Europe and Eastern Europe
    were divided roughly along the lines of the ROMAN & BYZANTINE
    EMPIRES, along with the ANGLICIZED ROMAN and CYRILLIC
    ALPHABETS.

    The NEW TESTAMENT is not just a CONTINUATION of the OLD
    TESTAMENT, in many WAYS in is a SERIES of COUNTER POINTS
    and somewhat ANALOGOUS to the TORAH, GEMORA, MISHNA, &
    other works ….

    CHRISTIANITY is based on the life of a JEW.
    Many believe he was divine and son of God.
    There are a variety of beliefs.

    With the advent of the PRINTING PRESS, there became a series
    of PROTESTant beliefs or variations of the JUDEO – CHRISTIAN –
    CATHOLIC ETHIC.
    – The HOLY ROMAN EMIPIRE was run by men who were just as
    corrupt as the people who run D. C. or those that used JEWISH
    and other BELIEFS for their own reasons and benefits.
    .
    The HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE ceased being HOLY or ROMAN or
    an EMPIRE.

    Throughout HI STORY the INTELLECTUAL CLASS were the
    SAME RULING FAMILIES and they RAN
    > CROWN > KINGS – PRINCE – KNIGHTS = murderous brutes
    > RELIGIOUS > POPES – Cardinals – Bishops – Priest – Rabbis
    Ministers – Deacons – whatever
    > INTELLECTUALS & LOGISTICAL SUPPORT

    GERMAN PRINCES, like the BRITISH CROWN, & then FRENCH,
    DUTCH & others could embrace the JEWISH, CATHOLIC and
    CHRISTIAN protests because the SECULAR ADMINISTRATION
    of SPIRITUAL Matters had always been corrupt since the days of
    – HAM MU RABBI
    – p HAR OAH
    – ceaSaR – (reversed = Ra Sea C)

    There were centuries when NORMAN ROYALS worked on
    the ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

    WORDS were created and systemetized by people and that
    is why MILTON was BLINDED.

    Crucified Robber Barabbis = BAH RABBI
    Judas Iscariot = I SCARY OT
    Jesus – Jerus alem (psychologically binding JESUS MALE)
    Lebanon reversed = NON able


    One gets the IDEA.

    I happen to know people who know Chairman Malloy who like
    many others is know to peak at this blog, from what I believe.

    Since CHAIRMAN Malloy ABRIDGES Public Forum time to speak
    and since he does NOTHING to protect the safety and health of
    Citizens, including myself (I believe Kubic will be worse) and since
    he seems to throw money at Teachers, Fire, Police, and Lawyers,
    besides authorizing the BONDING of ALMOST $ 150 MILLION or
    almost 1/6th of a BILLION $$, why not make my point here that I
    do not like people trying to MURDER ME, my FAMILY, & others.

    I do not like my pocket being picked with rationalization or
    justification with hubris & devoid of emathy on affects on others,
    much like Bernie Madoff, Jack Abramoff, Al Gore, Dick Cheney,
    Bush & Rockefeller families, and others … I can not respect an
    intellect devoid of compassion and devoted to special interest,
    which is what I believe!

  31. 31 1george1

    P R I M O G E N I T O R – The untitled families of the titled
    went to distant lands,

    (MILTON)
    “where they could rule in HELL, rather than serve in HEAVEN.”



    SAINT THOMAS MORE (UTOPIA)

    With the advent of the NEW WORLD to conquor, royals learned
    to send challengers or troublemakers to the NEW WORLD.
    .
    (Botany Bay Austrailia was started as a penal colony)
    .
    (India was conquored by privateers of East India Company)
    .
    (royal charter is a formal document issued by a monarch. Charters
    have been used in Europe since mediæval times to create cities)
    (i.e., localities with recognised legal rights and privileges).
    Among the past and present groups formed by royal charter are the
    British East India Company,
    the Hudson’s Bay Company,
    the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O),
    the British South Africa Company, and
    some of the former British colonies on the North American mainland.
    (IS it IMPOSSIBLE the USA & USSR are NOT SECRETLY still part of
    the (INVISIBLE) BRITISH EMPIRE? (i am pro USA – not anti anyone
    who is good))

    FROM WIKIPEDIA:
    categorization of citizens into a rigid class structure of
    “golden,” “silver,” “bronze” and “iron” socioeconomic classes.
    no (m) ALLOYS?

    The golden citizens are trained in a rigorous 50-year long
    educational program to be benign oligarchs, the
    “philosopher-kings.”
    The wisdom of these rulers will supposedly eliminate poverty
    and deprivation through fairly distributed resources, though
    the details on how to do this are unclear.
    The educational program for the rulers is the central notion
    of the proposal.
    There is a general pacifism or pacifist attitude.
    However, the people of the Republic are all ready to defend
    themselves or to compete militarily for resources (such as land)
    if necessary.
    .
    It has few laws, no lawyers and rarely sends its citizens to war,
    .
    but hires mercenaries from among its war-prone neighbors

    (these mercenaries were deliberately
    sent into dangerous situations
    in the hope that the more warlike populations
    of all surrounding countries will be weeded out,
    leaving peaceful peoples).

  32. 32 jezebel282

    Portia,

    I’ve moved your usual deregulation and Obama bashing discussion here. Mostly because it has little to do with a stolen Lexus.

    “Now, Jez, “deregulate everything imaginable”? We’ve already made clear that I favor consumer sovereignty, the strongest regulation possible.”

    Please explain to me how consumer sovereignty would have prevented GE from dumping tons of toxic material into the Hudson river? Or perhaps how consumers would be able to enhance safety conditions in coal mines? Or perhaps that dietary supplements that are not regulated by the FDA don’t really make you thinner or become more…ummm….”potent”?

    Efficiency and competence are entirely different arguments.

  33. 33 1george1

    Would they DARE appoint NADER to HEAD CONSUMER PROTECTION?

    Only PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES among Republicans:
    Ron Paul – Conservative Libertarian
    Rick Santorum – Conservative

    Nader for President & Paul for VP.

    IF Obama actually got away from WARD POLITICAL BOSSES and
    STOOD on his OWN TWO FEET, and was FREED from RIGHT,
    LEFT, & SOCIALISTS / RADICALS – I strongly suspect he could be
    what people wanted him to be.

    For now he is like the BLACKS who are “allowed” to run cities as
    FRONTS for the POWERS that are.

    Black, white, pink, yellow, or brown, all elected are like “UNCLE TOM’S
    CABIN’S HOUSE NIGGERS,” who get preferential treatment over us
    FIELD NIGGERS … the UNAFFILITED of all colors.

  34. 34 sudds

    Holy cr*p… George has finally snapped!!!

  35. 35 mikereynolds

    Finally??

  36. 36 jezebel282

    Sudds,

    Just out of curiosity….where did you get that kid?

  37. 37 1george1

    1. Cute picture

    2. Got a reaction ….didn’t I?

    3. I have people of color in my extended family.

    There are certain words in Literature and Music, which are
    no longer politically correct to be allowed to say or write as
    they are particularly offensive pejoratives.

    Which is more offensive a word
    or acts of physical violence
    or acts of emotional violence
    or acts of financial violence
    or acts of perpetuating dependancies

  38. 38 portia1776

    Jez,

    “Obama bashing”? Moi? Jeez, Jez, how touchy are you Obamaistas? Did I not effusively praise Obama for his exceedingly rare honesty in the not-in-Kansas-anymore speech?

    “usual deregulation”? …when I wrote explicitly in favor of the strongest form of regulation and championed — gasp — constitutional government regulation? You denied I was in favor of the common defense — a patently false claim. You know, Jez, the thing about the free market place of ideas is that peddling in falsehoods is liable to give you a bad reputation. Readers will eventually stop believing the things you write, which would be a shame because what you write locally is usually fair, informed, and trenchant.

    Does this count as your rebuttal to the other points? For shame, there is not a specific response to be found in any of this.

    “Please explain to me how consumer sovereignty would have prevented GE from dumping tons of toxic material into the Hudson river?” — At the time (late 1940s) that GE was dumping in the Hudson river the third-party effects were not well known or known at all, and property rights were not established. Consumers could not mobilize to bring the power of their wallets to bear because they simply didn’t know. And those people (such as fishermen and their customers) who were being negatively impacted by GE did not have standing in court. These are legitimate problems that require thoughtful solutions. State and local governments — gasp — do have a role in ensuring clear property rights, an impartial judiciary, and that one’s actions do not impose uncompensated costs on another.

    Jez, I know this stuff is boring. You prefer not to think about it and to put your unqualified faith into national government regulation. I fail to see how if the Nixon-created EPA had existed in that period matters would have been made better. On what basis do you make this magical claim when the EPA has repeatedly failed in real-time (MTBE, arsenic, asbestos)?

    I would also submit to you that this is an unfortunate example from your own point of view. NYU Law Professor David Schoenbrod (author of the Yale University Press “Saving Our Environment from Washington”) delivered a 2006 lecture at EPA headquarters in which he cited how “EPA scientists evaluating the PCBs that General Electric had put into the Hudson River found that:

    ‘Cancer risks and noncancer health hazards from
    being exposed to PCB’s in the river through skin con-
    tact with contaminated sediments and river water,
    incidental ingestion of sediments, inhalation of PCB’s
    in air, and consumption of river water as a drinking
    water source are generally within or below [the
    EPA’s] levels of concern.’

    The agency thus found that it was safe to drink the river water all day, everyday, but its press release deleted those reassuring words. That pivotal information did not get into major newspapers. It was convenient to omit this information because it was politically imperative for the EPA — under both Clinton and Bush, although for different reasons — to support dredging some of the PCBs from the river. Calling into question the need for dredging would have made it harder for the agency to do what was politic.”

    Now, doesn’t that recent finding by the EPA put you at ease?

    “Or perhaps how consumers would be able to enhance safety conditions in coal mines?” – Buy less coal, just as they bought fewer grapes to protest working conditions on California farms or refused to use segregated government buses. The mine owner’s self-interest — whether from benevolence, the bottom line, lawsuits or the threat of litigation, or all of the above — is most responsible for improved working conditions by spurring the development of technology that simultaneously made mines more profitable and safer. To be clear, coal mines remain dangerous places to work. So, too, are factories and farms. We are blessed to live in a time when — gasp — technological innovation and productivity allow the vast majority of Americans not to have to work in such hazardous occupations. Those who still do are enjoying increased benefits for their risky labors, pursuant to the laws of supply and demand. This point is forgotten by President Obama, State Senator Kevin Kelly, and fellow reactionary “progressives” who yearn for the days of humans being reduced to cogs on the wretched assembly lines or farm hands in the fields. Manufacturing is frequently dirty and dangerous work.

    “Or perhaps that dietary supplements that are not regulated by the FDA don’t really make you thinner or become more…ummm….”potent”?” – You always neglect the distinction between voluntary choice and coercion. This betrays a disdain for individual freedom worthy of an Obamaista. No one is forcing you to buy dietary supplements — not the advertisements, infomercials, or the capitalist hippies, bless their hearts, at Whole Foods and Nature’s Way. As with everything in life, caveat emptor. Government is not so nice. Our taxes go to Obama’s monopolistic union, finance, and “green jobs” cronies whether we want those dollars to or not. You never seem to be upset about this…. now why is that?

    “Efficiency and competence are entirely different arguments.” – Actually,
    there are certain things that government just should not do, regardless of how efficiently and competently it does them.

    Would you forgive the existence of a government censor if they only prohibited the “bad” books and made their determinations quickly? I don’t think so.

    What, one wonders, would be your reaction to a government regulation that people of your kind are to submit under threat of force to the most invasive of searches whenever traveling? It would not matter for much that the search was done with speedy professionalism now, would it?

    How about if, within the span of two hours, you were arrested, taken to an undisclosed location, and told there that, on account of national security, you would be spending an indeterminate number of years in solitary confinement. Not so much a matter of efficiency, right? We could take issue with the wisdom of your incarceration. That is, provided it was known, which it would not be, possibly for years. You see what great fun there is to have once that dusty old, obstructionist, Constitution of “negative liberties” is completely out of the way? We could then have quick “justice” of the kind only President Obama and Richard Nixon could believe in. I’m guessing you might still have a problem with this scenario, and not only on account of my casting you in the role of Dreyfus? I would like to think you would care enough about the principles of individual liberty to have solidarity for one wrongly accused and illegally denied her rights to due process. Maybe that is to give you too much credit.

    Assuming you do come down principally on the examples above, you will yet ever so meekly defend the FDA censors of drugs, who daily deny the terminally ill access to potentially helpful medications. You concede in advance that the bureaucrats decisions could be faster. Isn’t it unfortunate when the patient does not live long enough to mount multiple appeals? This is, however, for their own good, their own safety, government knows best — and here is where you trail off. That is actually what the FDA says, and you must agree in your silence contemptuous of the victims’ plight. One wonders if you and FDA bureaucrats realize how grotesquely absurd it is to speak of “safety” in this context, as if dying is in any sense “safe” or at least “safer” than the alternative. Can you imagine the conversation:

    Bureaucrat: “Sorry, your request has been denied because this drug, while promising, has not yet proven its efficacy.”
    Patient: “I would be glad to prove or disprove it. My doctors said this drug is my only hope. If nothing else perhaps my taking it could benefit science. Even if it didn’t work for me, I would take comfort that my sacrifice would be helping future patients.”
    Bureaucrat: “Sorry, no can do. The Phase II trials revealed some nasty side effects. You would be four times as likely to develop high blood pressure.”
    Patient: “I’m not too worried about that just now. I’m dying, you know.”
    Bureaucrat: “Sorry, this drug is not safe to try yet. The denial is for your own good.”
    Patient: “How considerate of you… I’m glad my tax dollars pay for thoughtful public servants at FDA who known better than me and my doctors what is in my best interest.”

    Perhaps this is why patients are notified by mail.

    We are probably lucky for the inefficiently and incompetency, without which more of our freedoms would be lost. Of course you recognize no limiting principle on the national government’s power. But that is your problem, not mine or the Constitution’s. I do not care how efficiently and competently government on a daily basis violates our civil and economic liberties — only the speech censor example is not yet a reality in Obama’s America and he’s working on it — we should have a lawful, constitutional government that does not violate our civil and economic liberties in the very first place.

    At all levels of power — from a certain detective feeling entitled to a shiny new Lexus to a certain state senator who feels entitled to making seniors even more dependent on himself (his firm and fellow lawyers), to certain presidents who believe themselves smart enough to dictate how private wealth should be “redistributed” and individual health decisions are made — we’re paying for and suffering dearly under far too much government. To this you have no response except to deflect, indulge in ad hominem, and repeat redundantly debunked claims. Such ankle biting does not rise to the occasion, leaving me an (unsatisfied) victor by default. I would much prefer to have the best counter-argument articulated and would write it myself were time permitting. Short of providing the best possible stating of your own case, a maybe you can finally start taking responsibility for the bad policies and worse politicians you have been supporting. You rightly renounced your prior support of Jimmy Miron. Why not Barack Obama, our Miron of the megalopolis?

  39. 39 jezebel282

    Portia,

    “the thing about the free market place of ideas” is that it’s is entirely different than a free market place of actual pollutants, toxins, harmful products, corruption, false claims, gouging, Ponzi schemes, embezzlement, lethal working conditions and substandard materials.

    “Readers will eventually stop believing the things you write,”
    That is a chance we all take when we begin posting. Including you.

    “For shame, there is not a specific response to be found in any of this.”
    Have you noticed how long your posts tend to be?

    “are generally within or below [the EPA’s] levels of concern.”
    Well, there you go. I would certainly take a law professor’s word that the Hudson River is a safe source of drinking water. Where did he live, the Love Canal?
    Would YOU have eaten a bass caught in the Hudson during the 60’s and 70’s?

    “Buy less coal, just as they bought fewer grapes”
    ROTFLMAO! Really? When was the last time you bought coal? Oh wait, could it be that the answer is “never”? Or are you suggesting we do not use electricity to protest UI’s use of coal fired generators? Do we have a clue which mines UI buys coal from?

    “What, one wonders, would be your reaction to a government regulation that people of your kind are to submit under threat of force to the most invasive of searches whenever traveling?”
    My kind?

    “We could then have quick “justice” of the kind only President Obama and Richard Nixon could believe in.”
    Whew! Now that was quite a long leap. From regulating working conditions and pollutants to putting me in prison? They may be more connected if you believe (and apparently you do) that a group of profit seekers in a combined effort (a corporation) is exactly the same thing as a single human being.

    “My doctors said this drug is my only hope” since they have been working on it themselves and have been granted a patent pending. In fact they have incorporated and now the collectively are entitled to the same rights as an individual. Oh by the way, the pharmaceutical company also paid for their lab, assistants, and cars.

    “I would much prefer to have the best counter-argument articulated and would write it myself were time permitting.”
    It is more than obvious that your one person fan club would approve of that.

    “You rightly renounced your prior support of Jimmy Miron. Why not Barack Obama, our Miron of the megalopolis?”
    It is very clear that the former is a sociopath. The latter is simply a disappointment.

  40. 40 1george1

    Each of a dozen points are worthy of separation for debates.

    I praise portia, the time, for again being bipartisan and non partisan
    in the blame area.

    There are area in which I agree with Portia or Jeze.
    Areas I agree with neither.
    They are entitled to view my positions any way they choose.
    I try not to put peoples’ words in their mouths, nor make it personal,
    when the issues are political and public interest.

    Happy Hanukka,
    Merry Christmas

  41. 41 portia1776

    Jez,

    Assuming it is a commodity (speech, medicine, cars), the type of commodity in the free marketplace is irrelevant. When writing things that are patently false, you are polluting the commons.

    “That is a chance we all take when we begin posting. Including you.” – Of course, I take my role seriously. Every sentence that I write is substantiated by copious amounts of documentation. And I take all comers that time permits. It is for these reasons that I have never been found to be factually wrong about anything written here and no one can say they are in doubt of where I stand on any issue. If you are, please do ask. Only A+ quality analysis here. For independent verification, I am glad to count George as a quality inspector “I praise portia, the time, for again being bipartisan and non partisan in the blame area.” Thank you!

    “Have you noticed how long your posts tend to be?” – The original post made three points about Obama. You addressed none of them.

    “Well, there you go. I would certainly take a law professor’s word that the Hudson River is a safe source of drinking water.” — Oh, you need to re-read that quotation. The law professor was quoting… wait for it… the EPA’s own scientific analysis. If you don’t like that analysis, it is you, not I, that owe us an explanation.

    “ROTFLMAO! Really?” — Actually, yes. Right now you can decide to get 100% of your energy from non-coal sources. Even though the deregulation of Connecticut’s energy generation market that has occurred is pitiful, consumers have benefited from greater choice. Look it up. And, while you’re at it, read about the Delano Grape Strike or Montgomery Buss Boycott.

    “My kind?” — You know, American.

    “Whew! Now that was quite a long leap.” — Leap? I was giving examples of the kinds of things that government under no lawful circumstances should do. Again, the paucity of your principles is telling.

    “you believe (and apparently you do) that a group of profit seekers in a combined effort (a corporation) is exactly the same thing as a single human being.” — And this is related to what I wrote… oh, right, it has nothing to do with what I wrote. For reasons unexplained leftists think “corporation = people” is always a point worth making, some kind of trump card suitable for raising in any argument. But what does it mean? The legal definition of a corporation is “an association of shareholders (or a single shareholder) created under law as an artificial person, having a legal entity separate from the individuals who compose it, with the capacity of continuous existence or succession, and the capacity of taking, holding, and conveying property, suing and being sued, and exercising, like a natural person, other powers that are conferred on it by law (Barron’s Dictionary of Legal Terms).” This is nothing new, there is nothing remarkable about it, nor does mindlessly repeating the “charge” endlessly somehow add validity to what was from the start vapidity. The “progressive” fetish to silence free speech not of their own making is disgusting and dangerous. You, of all people, should know better.

    “since they have been working on it themselves and have been granted a patent pending. In fact they have incorporated and now the collectively are entitled to the same rights as an individual. Oh by the way, the pharmaceutical company also paid for their lab, assistants, and cars.” — So, in other words, you want the patient to die because the doctor and pharmaceutical company might be compensated — gasp — they may even profit from investing years of labor and investing tens of millions (if not billions) of private dollars on researching a potentially life-saving drug? You have just given us a fine example of the moral perversity of the “progressive” mindset. But we need not speak in abstractions. As a defender of the FDA, please do tell me what your response is to the family of Abigail Burroughs (http://abigail-alliance.org/story.php).

    “The latter is simply a disappointment.” — What ever for? Stimulus, bailouts, Dodd-Frank, Obamacare, Patriot Act, war(s), the most debt, deficits, and regulations in our history… I could go on, but President Obama is an unprecedented “Progressive” success. Your disappointment is simply the cognitive dissonance of policies you have always supported spectacularly failing in practice.

  42. 42 1george1

    Portia,
    What do you think about the quality of GROUND WATER the EPA
    is inspecting at the CONDOS on Ferry Boulevard, near Mr. Malloy’s
    Business?

    Do you favor & why?
    1) Adding I – 95 exit / on ramp # 33

    2) Keating Ford Condo & new minimalist Condo/Apartment Bedroom
    Count for Parking paces?

    3) Adding Condo Complexs to Lordship Boulevard, North end (James
    Farm road, North Peters road), Cutspring, Broadbridge, Main Street,
    Judith Terrace?
    What about apartment complex within 1 mile of shopping like BIG Y?

    4) Should AVCO SAEP be mostly Condos & like Harborside, over 4
    stories?

    5) Why nothing done in 11 years related to EPA – RAYMARK cleanup?

    6) What are your ideas related to:
    A) Economic Development
    B) Unfunded Mandates
    C) Town attorney cost – never justified to the Malloy Council?
    D) Police Dept OT / PENSIONS – never justified to the Malloy Council?
    E) Fire Dept OT / PENSIONS – never justified to the Malloy Council?
    F) Fire Truck spending & circumvision of BID PROCESS?

    7) What are your beliefs about Malloy Council’s Bonding authorizations
    of $ 103 MILLION in MAY 2010 and all of the OTHER BONDING &
    REBONDING?

    8) How would you compare actual accomplishment and what you view
    as negative, with about equal comments about?
    A) Harkins Administration
    B) Miron Administration

    9) What is your view of Shakespeare Theater?

    10) What should happen in AVCO?

    11) What should happen @ Sikorsky?

    12) Where are there wastes in BoE, and how should they be cut?

    13) Where are there wastes in Town Budget, and how should they
    be cut?

    14) Identify added Revenue sources, other than “collected taxes?”

    15) Is 31 % of 2010 Town Budget Benefits?
    A) Are Pensions sustainable? Fair? Reasonable?
    B) Are Health Care costs sustainable? Fair? Reasonable?
    C) Are other Benefits sustainable? Fair? Reasonable?

    Rather than abstract critques about things which are at National
    and International which DO affect us, why not weigh in with your
    substantial intellectual abilities to identify & solve local problems?

    Oh, I have made suggestions & documented same on all of the above?
    I would be gald to compare once you post!

    This can be fun.
    Even Mike Reyolds might enjoy this.

    What ever happened to Mayor 2013?
    It’s not even 2012!

    What happened to all those other posters, who were sooo sure
    that Harkins would solve problems?

    1996 > Harkins to Harford
    1996 > Berchem / Burturla added to Town/BoE Payroll
    1996 > Town VOLUNTEERS: Defined Benefit Pension (theft)
    1996 > AVCO SAEP makes ARMY Base Closure
    1996 > Raymark becomes SUPERFUND

    1998 > AVCO CLOSED
    1998 > Team Stratford awarded preferred Vender
    1998 > Stratford BONDS $ 95,000,000 for Defined Benefit

    1999 > Pension Calculations renegotiated, taking CAPS off of the
    PENSION Calculations kiting pensions

    2002 > Town Council did not make Pension short fall calculations
    2002 > Pension Obligations transferred to TAX PAYERS from BOND.

    2003 > UNDER FUNDING started after being OVER FUNDED 3 years,
    with TAX PAYERS now PAYING PENSIONS “300% to 600% HIGHER”
    in Defined “BENEFIT” than what could have been obligated through
    “Defined CONTRIBUTION Pension Plan!”
    2003 > remarkable 65 people retire due to GOLDEN PARACHUTE
    2003 > 2008 PENSION OBLIGATIONS increase 65 % in 58 Months.

    The same people involved in scr*wing Tax Payers since 1987?

    Have there been “Political” MURDERS, to “SET UP situations” & to
    “CHILL / REPRISE / SILENCE ?”
    Have the (Bribed) POLICE refused to INVESTIGATE DEATHS?

    Portia as a highly intelligent political observer, in your HONEST &
    UNBIASED OPINION, do people have MOTIVE to MURDER with
    * $ 60,000 average PENSIONS?
    * Attorney fees up 1,000%?
    * Contracts & Change orders like Fire House & Fire Trucks?
    * POSSIBLE KICK BACKS/FINDERS FEES – INSURANCE, PENSION,
    ZONING, & more?
    * Town JOBS & PRMOTIONS with BENEFITS being 32 % of Town’s
    2010 Budget?

    Anyone wanna bet, Portia doesn’t answer?
    Jeze – do you wanna answer?
    Mike Reynolds, wanna borrow my tin foil hat? Dare to debate me
    or veracity of the FACTS & OPINIONS & POLITICAL BELIEFS?

  43. 43 jezebel282

    George,

    “Anyone wanna bet, Portia doesn’t answer?”

    If you had given Portia an opening to criticise that evil mastermind Barack Obama I would take you up on it.

  44. 44 jezebel282

    George,

    “Jeze – do you wanna answer?”

    I might if you stuck to one topic.

  45. 45 1george1

    George,
    “Anyone wanna bet, Portia doesn’t answer?”
    If you had given Portia an opening to criticise that evil
    mastermind Barack Obama I would take you up on it.

    Jeze, although I requested Portia complement & insult
    Bush / Obama – Miron / Harkins somewhat even handedly,
    nothing prevents Portia or you from answering as you please!

    George,
    “Jeze – do you wanna answer?”
    I might if you stuck to one topic.

    Jeze, 1 topic? What if the 1 topic was 100 % connected?
    Nothing prevents Portia or you from answering as you please!
    You can also pick any of the above single topics and then
    only respond to that single topic.
    Then pick another topic & respond ..
    Repeat
    Repeat
    Repeat

    C’mon Jeze, as a lady, you should be able to multi task?

  46. 46 jezebel282

    George,

    “You can also pick any of the above single topics and then
    only respond to that single topic.”

    Same to you, fella.

  47. 47 1george1

    Touche ….

    However, it is also just an option … lady …

  48. 48 jezebel282

    Portia,

    “Assuming it is a commodity (speech, medicine, cars), the type of commodity in the free marketplace is irrelevant.”
    What is a commodity? Speech? I don’t think so. Although reference has been made to the marketplace of ideas, it is not a market. It is purely a human process. You just don’t find a lot of speeches made by other species.

    “Every sentence that I write is substantiated by copious amounts of documentation.”
    Well, that’s for sure. No argument there. It’s amazing that you can only find documentation that supports your position. It’s as if no contradictory documentation exists.

    “The original post made three points about Obama. You addressed none of them.” Honestly there were not worth spending the effort on. No one person can bear the responsibility for everything the country has done for the last 235 years. My disappointment in the man originates in his ability to go far enough and his over willingness to concede the positions he ran on.

    “I was giving examples of the kinds of things that government under no lawful circumstances should do. Again, the paucity of your principles is telling.”
    This is an argument about degree and competence. Citizens want to get on airplanes and skip the part where they are blown into smithereens at 30,000ft. Unless you can think of a better way to make sure that doesn’t happen, it’s not really about government intrusion.

    “The “progressive” fetish to silence free speech not of their own making is disgusting and dangerous.”
    (See paragraph 1 supra).

    “So, in other words, you want the patient to die because the doctor and pharmaceutical company might be compensated”
    Not at all. Here’s what I don’t want: A medication that has not been proven to be safe and effective for the sole reason of marketing it to a population that will pay dearly for it. Or perhaps a medication that alleviates one or two symptoms of a disease while causing disastrous and lethal side effects. Or my personal favorite which is a drug that combines two medications that are extremely affordable to make one very expensive one.

    “What ever for? Stimulus, bailouts, Dodd-Frank, Obamacare, Patriot Act, war(s), the most debt, deficits, and regulations in our history”
    That is pretty much what I had meant before. Obama just hasn’t gone far enough. The Stimulus wasn’t big enough to be effective, TARP was a Bush/Paulson plan (why was that legal?), the most debt was caused by the least taxation and most wars and regulations were just not enforced. The most disappointing aspect is that of all of those who took our money to the casino and gambled it away on games they rigged, not a single one, I repeat, not one has been arrested and tried.

    While you will, no doubt, continue to argue that any government regulation of anything is evil, I will continue to believe that people and their organizations (Corporations, Lobbies, Lawyers, Congressmen) must be regulated effectively.

  49. 49 sudds

    “Sudds,

    Just out of curiosity….where did you get that kid?”

    Umm… that’s my son!!!

    “1. Cute picture”

    Thanks!

  50. 50 jezebel282

    Sudds,

    “Umm… that’s my son!!!”

    Congratulations!
    You can talk Mrs. Sudds into anything, can’t you?

    I’m going to guess that in about 4.5 years you’ll have lot’s more to say about the BOE.

  51. 51 sudds

    😀

    Heck in 4.5 years I may be ON the BOE! 😛

  52. 52 sudds

    PS… THANKS!!!

  53. 53 1george1

    Sudds, congrats ..

  54. 54 portia1776

    Apologies to George. I was going to try to wade into your post, but only had time for that or Jez’s latest. Another time, perhaps.

    “What is a commodity? Speech? I don’t think so.” — I suggest you, as Mayor Moron would say, “google it.” Of course speech is a commodity… just look at Bill Clinton’s fees for speechifying.

    “Although reference has been made to the marketplace of ideas, it is not a market. It is purely a human process.” – This is painful to read. What exactly do you think a market is if not a “purely human process” by which commodities — be they ideas, services, or products — are exchanged? You will be fascinated to learn that there is a market for everything and the market is everywhere. The Soviet Union had a market — two, actually. The official, state-controlled market that failed to provide adequate quantities of everything from food to consumer goods, and created intolerably long lines for anyone not of the nomenklatura (socialist oligarchy). Then there was the illegal, “black” market in which individuals traded underground literature, recordings (the banned Beatles were very popular), services, and products to cope with the government created scarcity and hardship of daily life in their “workers paradise.”

    “It’s amazing that you can only find documentation that supports your position. It’s as if no contradictory documentation exists.” – when I’m commenting on the words and actions of the other side, who happen to be those in power? When I’m citing, verbatim and often at length, their arguments, policies, and documentation? Confirmation bias is an absurd charge. To borrow the old leftist cliché, I’m speaking “truth to power.”

    Cite an example where I’m unfaithful to the facts, refute my logic, or get over it.

    “Honestly there were not worth spending the effort on.” – My hope for you springs eternal. But do note that the three points I made stand until proven otherwise.

    “No one person can bear the responsibility for everything the country has done for the last 235 years. ” – Not 235 years, just the three in which he has been the most powerful man in the world and the inflicter of polices that, contrary to his promises, have dramatically worsened the lot of all Americas, but particularly the less fortunate.

    “My disappointment in the man originates in his ability to go far enough and his over willingness to concede the positions he ran on.” — Obama has not conceded anything and for two years didn’t have to. Remember how Obamacare passed into law without a single Republican vote? Oh, right, you were crying about their impotent obstructionism then. What pretentious, cry-baby special pleading. When Democrats controlled the White House, House, and Senate they, just as their GOP predecessors, accomplished everything they wanted, running roughshod over the hapless opposition and the Constitution.

    “This is an argument about degree and competence.” — Make note, dear readers, of how this restatement confirms exactly what I feared: Jez admits of no limiting principle to the national government’s power. Government censorship of free speech? Okay, says Jez, just as long as its not too much and is done competently. Warrant-less invasions of privacy? Denial of due process? Both are fine by Jez provided the bureaucrats are diligent professionals — and, presumably, that Jez is not the victim.

    I have challenged Jez repeatedly to state by what principle government should be limited: he can’t and won’t because he doesn’t support constitutionally limited government.

    I have challenged Jez repeatedly to state what individual rights are inalienable (i.e., those which government cannot, under any circumstances, violate): he can’t and won’t.

    (If those words sound familiar, they should. I have just replaced “Chris” with “Jez” from my post of October 28, 2010).

    “Citizens want to get on airplanes and skip the part where they are blown into smithereens at 30,000ft. Unless you can think of a better way to make sure that doesn’t happen, it’s not really about government intrusion.” – There is much twaddle packed into these two sentences. First, you assume that the national government, and only the national government, can meet citizens understandable desire not to be “blown into smithereens.” (Have you heard of the underwear bomber? Who allowed him on the plane and who actually stopped him from blowing it up? Extra credit: Who were the heroes of Flight 93, government bureaucrats or courageous private individuals?) Second, you think this unqualified desire trumps our constitutional rights — sorry when did we vote to nullify the 4th Amendment? Finally, on this fallacious premise, you wave off the issue of “government intrusion” as an issue at all.

    There is an astoundingly simple solution to protect the constitutional rights of Americans to literally not be molested by their government every time they attempt to fly as well as to allow them to fly safely. In fact, they would be significantly safer than they are now under the tyranny of the TSA’s roving hands, incompetent gaze, and illegal existence. This solution would also save tens of billions of tax-payer dollars. Care to guess what it is? Hint it involves private companies and a “yiddishe kop,” as you might say?

    “Not at all.” – Without a renunciation of the principled problem with the FDA, these three words are meaningless. Everything else you wrote amounts to issues best left to patients and their doctors who, through the market, will vote their preferences. It is impossible to make judgments like this in the aggregate because what is “safe and effective” for one person may be “unsafe and effectively deadly” or “safe but ineffective” for another. The human body, as the market, is incredibly complex, a reality learned the hard way when we try to intervene in the natural processes of either.

    “Obama just hasn’t gone far enough.” — You are like the spoiled kid who gets everything he always wanted only to discover that everything he always wanted sucks. The question remains why do you keep demanding “more” of it?

    “The Stimulus wasn’t big enough to be effective,” — Really, care to offer some evidence?

    I have no better source than the Obama Administration own report. Unless Romer and Bernstein have since been deemed “enemies of the people,” I think my quotation from Sept 12, 2010 counts as “contradictory documentation” to my own position and, as it turns out, the Obama Administration’s own record of non-accomplishment:

    “[H]ave the interventionist economic policies of Presidents Bush and Obama led to “job growth, expansion, or economic recovery” that was promised?

    Specifically, did unemployment peak in Q3 2009 and stay below 8% as projected it would after passage of the wondrous American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan stimulus (see chart on page 5 of the Romer-Bernstein Report: http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf )

    If the answer is “no,” then it is you, the proponent of such policies, and not I, their principled foe, that have some explaining to do. Remember, this is an objective standard of this administration’s own choosing.” (https://stratfordcharter.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/finreg/#comment-13809)

    “TARP was a Bush/Paulson plan (why was that legal?),” – Do you really have to ask the question? Of course the original Bush/Paulson plan was illegal, a fact undiminished by the bipartisan support that made law the redistribution of taxpayer dollars to the political class’ corporate socialist cronies on Wall Street. Don’t forget, though, how Obama/Geithner innovated on this illegality by diverting TARP funds to bailout Obama’s monopolistic union cronies and failed auto companies that deserved to be shuttered.

    “the most debt was caused by the least taxation” – No, the debt was cause by… wait for it… too much spending. But if you insist on claiming otherwise please explain how our situation would be dramatically made better by increased taxation? You act as if you have no conception of how much of our hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being wasted, such that if the “Bush” (actually bipartisan) tax rates (not cuts, all private wealth does not belong to the national government) were to expire, the deficit this year “at most, would have [been] reduced… from $1.30 trillion to $1.22 trillion” (http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/NEWS/2011-12-12-PNI1213opi-krauthammerPNIBrd_ST_U.htm). Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t feel that we’re getting our money’s worth?

    “and most wars and regulations were just not enforced.” – Jez, you can stop pretending to be Chris. I’m not interested in your “feelings.” They remain true regardless of your unthinking opposition. See my post of August 24, 2010 in which I quoted Economist Veronique de Rugy (this is her, not me writing):

    “Some people still seem to think Republicans take a hands-off approach to regulation, probably because the party is always quick to criticize the burdens regulations place on businesses. But Republican rhetoric doesn’t always match Republican policy.

    The Bush team has spent more taxpayer money on issuing and enforcing regulations than any previous administration in U.S. history. Between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2009, outlays on regulatory activities, adjusted for inflation, increased from $26.4 billion to an estimated $42.7 billion, or 62 percent. By contrast, President Clinton increased real spending on regulatory activities by 31 percent, from $20.1 billion in 1993 to $26.4 billion in 2001.” (https://stratfordcharter.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/the-dark-side/)

    “The most disappointing aspect is that of all of those who took our money to the casino and gambled it away on games they rigged, not a single one, I repeat, not one has been arrested and tried.” — Jez, how silly of you. What sense would it make for Obama’s DOJ to prosecute the very corporate socialist cronies who are Obama’s best supporters… to the tune, most recently, of $38,000 a plate?

    I share you’re sentiment, but it is actually much worse. Not only have Bush and Obama prevented a single person from bearing responsibility for their recklessness, stupidity, and illegality (my personal favorites for the dock are Geithner, Paulson, Frank, Dodd, Bush) — they have set a dangerous precedent and put into place policies that are encouraging, if not guaranteeing, more recklessness, stupidity, and illegality at our expense.

    “While you will, no doubt, continue to argue that any government regulation of anything is evil,” — How can there be “no doubt” when, just in my last post (and in a hundred or so previously), I “championed — gasp — constitutional government regulation”? Jez, this is a matter of intellectual honesty. To continually repeat this lie about my position does not make it any truer. In the thousands (tens of thousands?) of words that I have contributed to your marketplace of ideas, you can find not a single instance in which I have rejected all government regulation or called, as the Marxist/Lenists do, for the “withering away of the state.”

    What you will find is my repeated and unwavering support for constitutional, limited government and opposition to those departments, actions, and regulations that are unconstitutional (i.e., illegal). I don’t know why you bristle so at the suggestion of, yes, evil (an apt word for the FDA’s denying terminally ill patients potentially helpful medications for their own “safety”), but not the evil doers or their evil doing. Again, that is your moral failing, not my own.

    I demand at the point of your integrity a retraction and apology. You know very well I support limited, constitutional, lawful government.

    “I will continue to believe that people and their organizations (Corporations, Lobbies, Lawyers, Congressmen) must be regulated effectively.” – How? By whom? At whose expense? Who regulates the regulators? You’re not really interested in answers so I will leave you with the questions.

  55. 55 1george1

    Portia,

    Apologies accepted:

    1. For not addressing my challenge on Stratford specific issues.

    2. Distinct possibility for being a likely:

    ….A. Harkins apologist 8)

    ….B. Mirons basher 😉

    ….C. Evader of realistic solutions to benefit we unwashed masses 🙂
    …….. to favor the Country Club (faux) Capitalistic Cronyism of the
    …….. real “wellfare queens” of (faux) Republicans (Republican’ts or
    …….. RepubliConnArtists, and (faux) Democrats (DemonCrats or
    …….. HypoCrats – hypocrites) who, like Cannibals and Ghouls have
    …….. stolen the “American Dream” and Dr. MLK Jr. “Dream” whereas
    …….. Church bells would ring from every corner about F R E E D O M!

    Did I misspell faux with it really spelled F * C K * * ?

    So PORTIA, please consider yourself challenged to DEBATE LOCAL
    ISSUES, whereas the Democrats only controlled the Town Council,
    1995 – 1997, and Bob Calzone was chosen Town Council Chair in
    2001 – 2003 as a (voting) Minority leader …. so the Republicans
    OWN Stratford’s financial / social / politcal mess, abetted (?) by the
    Mirons / Burturlas / state – area politicos ….

  56. 56 jezebel282

    Portia,

    “Of course speech is a commodity… just look at Bill Clinton’s fees for speechifying.”
    Really? Clinton? Maybe Republicans aren’t worth listening to? Oh wait, how much does Newt get? Paying someone (like Sarah Palin) enormous sums to hear them speak is justified as entertainment, not freedom of speech….otherwise I might be rich by now.

    “You will be fascinated to learn that there is a market for everything and the market is everywhere.”
    Now that is a fairly warped idea. It is actually the most limiting thing I’ve ever heard regarding free speech. Are ideas and their expression worthless simply because no one will pay for them?

    “have dramatically worsened the lot of all Americas, but particularly the less fortunate.” I think you need to move that magnifying glass around a little bit. When 16 million Americans are out of work, I don’t hear Obama calling for a reduction in Unemployment Benefits. I do believe that is Eric Cantor. I think it was Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) that was extolling the virtues of denying healthcare coverage to anyone with a pre-existing illness.

    “First, you assume that the national government, and only the national government, can meet citizens understandable desire not to be “blown into smithereens.” Pretty much. I’m not sure there are that many counties, cities or Towns that can afford to do it. Can you imagine the City of Bridgeport providing security at Sikorsky? They can’t even fix a fence.

    “Hint it involves private companies and a “yiddishe kop,” as you might say?”
    LOL! And what evidence can you provide that employees of private companies are more observant of constitutional rights?

    “In fact, they would be significantly safer than they are now under the tyranny of the TSA’s roving hands, incompetent gaze, and illegal existence.”
    I am surprised at you. I would have thought that in your fantastical free market world that it would be up to the sovereignty of the consumer to take the train or bus instead if they could not tolerate the “roving hands”, “incompetent gaze” and “illegal existence” of the TSA.

    “No, the debt was cause by… wait for it… too much spending.” It is that painful for you to admit that wars are bad expensive things and that your “too much spending” might include that? All the while lowering taxes.

    “DOJ to prosecute the very corporate socialist cronies who are Obama’s best supporters… to the tune, most recently, of $38,000 a plate?”
    And how much do burgers and fries cost at an RNC get together. Or a party with Sarah Palin as guest of honor?

    “single instance in which I have rejected all government regulation or called”
    Perhaps it was the paucity of examples you provided of regulations you did support (other than military actions).

    “my repeated and unwavering support for constitutional, limited government”
    Your fundamentalist view of the constitution leaves little room for change. There is a reason the Constitution was written on parchment and not chiseled in stone. In fact, the vast majority of the Constitution is procedural, not dogmatic. The existence of a judiciary directly implies that it must be interpreted. It is inherently nonexplicit for the most part. That is also the reason we have seen the need to amend it from time to time. As for limiting the power of the government, we have Congress for that. Sadly, they really suck at their jobs.

  57. 57 jezebel282

    Portia,

    “Why does you only support regulations (e.g., the FDA denying terminally ill patients access to medication for their own “safety”) that curtail individual liberty?”

    Mostly because I would rather focus on the tens (maybe hundreds?) of thousands of unnecessary deaths caused by the lack of health insurance or the inability of hundreds of thousands of Americans who cannot get the medications they need because the pharmaceutical companies do not think the profit margins on these medications are high enough.

    Drug shortage forces some hospitals to use ‘gray market’
    By Beverly Ford, New England Center for Investigative Reporting,
    Posted: 12/31/2011 12:05:01 AM EST

    A shortage of lifesaving drugs used on ambulances and in emergency rooms across Massachusetts is endangering patient lives and forcing some hospitals to turn to a thriving “gray market” of pharmaceutical re-sellers to obtain the scarce medications, sometimes at prices more than 1,000 percent above their original cost, The New England Center for Investigative Reporting has learned.
    “This is not a pretty situation. It’s a frightening situation,” said William Churchill, chief of pharmacy services at Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, one of many Massachusetts hospitals — including Berkshire Medical Center — now grappling with the drug shortage crisis.
    Churchill may be right.

    This year, 213 drugs have been listed in short supply, surpassing last year’s total of 211 to become the worst year ever for drug shortages in the United States, according to figures supplied by the University of Utah Drug Information Service, which racks those numbers. Most of those drugs are older, sterile injectables that are now manufactured as generic brands.
    While drug shortages date back decades, it wasn’t until the last two years that the situation reached epic proportions, spurred by production shutdowns caused by product contamination, material shortages, regulatory issues and other manufacturing problems, said Valerie Jensen, a pharmacist and expert on drug shortages with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Corporate mergers and cutbacks by generic drug makers seeking better profit margins made the situation even worse.

    Apparently there is no shortage at all of Viagra, oxycodone, percocet or Detrol. Antibiotics and cancer drugs on the other hand…..

    Perhaps the “free market”, profit seeking pharmas are not the ultimate solution for our health? While you may concentrate on the handful of individuals who’s Constitutional rights may be threatened by the use of unproven and unapproved medications, I think the health of millions of us may be more of a concern. But hey, that’s just me.

  58. 58 portia1776

    Jez,

    Even though you’re dodging the easy question of habeas corpus (come on, there is only one answer)…

    Apology otherwise accepted! Glad you’re finally waking up to the reality that government interference creates coordination problems between consumers and producers, including shortages that would not otherwise naturally occur in a free market. Bureaucrats simply cannot match the efficiency of a free market, i.e., one in which the artificial, government-imposed barriers between demand and supply are minimal.

    “Mostly because I would rather focus on the tens (maybe hundreds?) of thousands of unnecessary deaths caused by the lack of health insurance” — Maybe because you’re unprincipled? Why should the life and individual liberty of someone who, through no fault of their own, is stricken with a terminal illness be less valuable in your mind than someone who, as a large percentage of the uninsured, chose not to get health insurance and then suffered the consequences? Who do you entrust with the power to make such a determination?

    Before you say, “what about those who are legitimately unable to obtain health insurance?,” recall that Obamacare changes the way 100% of Americans get health insurance and access to health care (not the same things), and was not designed to help those who are most in need. Its predictable consequence will be to reduce the quality of care overall, but particularly for the less (politically) fortunate.

    As your uncertainty about how many supposed deaths are occurring because of lack of heath insurance, this is mere feeling not fact. Studies are inconclusive at best (from your point of view) on the value of insurance to achieving good health outcomes. (By all means, look it up).

    And while “high risk” individuals who are locked out of the existing government-created cartelized health insurance market are real, there numbers are pitifully small compared to Obamacare’s estimates. The problem was never as bad as it was made out to be. (By all means, look it up).

    “inability of hundreds of thousands of Americans who cannot get the medications they need because the pharmaceutical companies do not think the profit margins on these medications are high enough” — You really think that’s the reason? Ok, why aren’t the profit margins high enough?

    Hold that thought…

    (Quote from the article): “A shortage of lifesaving drugs used on ambulances and in emergency rooms across Massachusetts is endangering patient lives” — If Obamacare on the state level (Romneycare) is endangering patient lives by creating shortages of lifesaving drugs… what do you think is going to happen nationally as this abomination is implemented? Thanks, Jez, for proving my point with this great article.

    “Perhaps the ‘free market’, profit seeking pharmas are not the ultimate solution for our health?” — So, in response to an article about a largely government-created shortage, your solution is… wait for it… more government interference?!!! To replicate what has failed on the state level nationally?!!!

    There is clearly a market demand for life-savings drugs, such that some hospitals are willing and tellingly able to pay “prices more than 1,000 percent above their original cost.” In a free market, this tremendous margin would encourage more producers to get into the business of producing much needed drugs, and thus drive down their price while increasing availability. This is obvious and occurs everyday in other sectors of the economy. Look at the price of tablets or HDTVs now compared to what they were just a year or two ago. Before you say “medicine is different” (and then fail to explain how beyond your feelings that it just seems so), this would be truer here, where “Most of those drugs are older, sterile injectables that are now manufactured as generic brands.” But for regulatory barriers, any producer could, without doing its own costly R&D, bring a profitable drug to a proven market. Of course we don’t have anything resembling a free market in health insurance or access to care. As you have pointed out in your more lucid moments, consumers don’t know how much things cost and thus cannot bring competitive market forces to bear to reduce prices. There is always a middle man, directly or indirectly known as the government, between consumers and providers as well as between providers and producers. This middle man dramatically increases costs for everyone (consider how “Medicare and Medicaid are rife with fraud. We’re talking 10 percent or more of total spending, which is two orders of magnitude more than what credit card companies tolerate.” http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13235).

    “While you may concentrate on the handful of individuals… I think the health of millions of us may be more of a concern. But hey, that’s just me.” — I once read somewhere, oh where was it now, something along the lines that we are “endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Whether a single individual or a million individuals, you nor your beloved national government and its bureaucrats have any right to violate another human beings liberty. Each and every life is sacred.

    “who’s Constitutional rights may be threatened by the use of unproven and unapproved medications” — “May be”?!!! How about “are being” violated daily by preposterous government intervention to “protect” terminally ill patients from their only treatment option(s)? This is insanity masquerading as policy.

    Since we have established that you have no principles, let me say from a practical point of view that denying terminally ill patients access to drugs, in addition to being flagrantly unconstitutional and disgustingly immoral, retards the advance of science.

    Consider that some of the biggest advances in pharmacology have been last ditch efforts by desperate doctors to save terminally ill patients. Dr. Pasteur’s unproven and unregulated or approved by government rabies vaccination saved the life of Joseph Meister, to the great happiness of the 9 year old’s mother who begged the good doctor to treat him despite the risks. Leonard Thompson, the first patient to be treated with the inconclusively proven and unregulated or approved by government insulin, was also cured.

    “J.D.,” the first patient to receive intravenous chemotherapy, in 1942 and again unproven and unregulated or approved by government, was not as lucky, but “His courage, along with the skill of his doctors at Yale, paved the way for advances in cancer treatment that were inconceivable in his lifetime but which have since saved the lives of millions of people (http://news.yale.edu/2011/02/21/setting-record-straight-birth-chemotherapy-yale).”

    “Progressives” are utterly regressive when it comes to individual liberty, human ingenuity, and scientific progress. The greatest shortage of all is the “Progressives'” want of morality and imagination, which would be fine if they didn’t wish to forcibly and rudely impose their arrogant ignorance on everyone.

  59. 59 jezebel282

    Portia,

    “Maybe because you’re unprincipled?”
    Really? I’m the unprincipled one? It is you who focus on on the very few patients who cannot access unapproved medications as an example of everything wrong with the FDA rather than focusing on the much more pervasive and threatening shortage of proven medications due to falling profit margins.

    “Bureaucrats simply cannot match the efficiency of a free market, i.e., one in which the artificial, government-imposed barriers between demand and supply are minimal.”
    There is no law nor regulation that the government imposes on pharmaceutical companies in terms of the quantities of drugs they produce. Therefore we are now swimming in Viagra and starving for cancer drugs.

    “As your uncertainty about how many supposed deaths are occurring because of lack of heath insurance, this is mere feeling not fact.”
    Sigh…you mean a fact did not come from a esoteric source of yours? The American College of Emergency Physicians ( ACEP) in a published report of Sept. 26 quotes an international study showing that likely up to 84,000 Americans perish yearly because of lack of access to care from having no health insurance. (“Variations in Amenable Mortality – Trends in 16 High Income Nations”) The study notes “Cross-national comparisons consistently find that people in the U.S. have a harder time getting and paying for the health care they need than people in other countries.” http://www.acep.org/Content.aspx?id=49489&terms=Amenable%20Mortality
    Not everything, my friend, is reported on Fox News or by Glen Beck.

    “If Obamacare on the state level (Romneycare) is endangering patient lives by creating shortages of lifesaving drugs… what do you think is going to happen nationally as this abomination is implemented?”
    LOL! A bit short sighted there, Portia. It was an article in a Massachusetts newspaper. But there are similar articles from Tennessee, Georgia and Missouri. But certainly you would immediately focus on “RomneyCare” wouldn’t you? It happens to be the same shortages experienced by Bridgeport and St. Vincents Hospital.

    “In a free market, this tremendous margin would encourage more producers to get into the business of producing much needed drugs, and thus drive down their price while increasing availability.”
    What is the matter with you? Is there no point you are willing to concede? Even a free market fundamentalist like yourself must agree that when the profit margin drops because, say, your patent expired, you lower production to a minimum. The plain fact is that the government, as stated before, does not regulate the quantities produced. It is also plain that it is the pursuit of higher margins that are making these inexpensive but lifesaving drugs more scarce. The fact that price gouging exists is not a “feature” of a a free market system.

    While you may continue to cherry pick (not unlike Supplemental Medicare Insurance) you examples and topics, there is no reason in my opinion that millions of Americans must be sacrifice on your altar of the free market.

  60. 60 jezebel282

    Portia,

    “J.D.,” the first patient to receive intravenous chemotherapy, in 1942 and again unproven and unregulated or approved by government”

    From the actual article:

    “During these early years of World War II, Yale School of Medicine researchers had been participating in a top-secret program of the U.S. government to develop antidotes to chemical warfare agents, which the government feared would be used by the Germans against Allied troops. Attention turned to nitrogen mustard, and studies of its lethal effects on mouse tumors suggested that it might also be effective against certain cancer cells, despite its toxicity. Although their research was heavily censored by the War Department, the Yale physicians began exploring nitrogen mustard for this purpose.

    By the time J.D. was admitted on August 25, 1942, at age 47, his tumor mass was so large and hard that he could not move his head. Yale physicians had been looking for a cancer patient willing to undergo experimental treatment with nitrogen mustard. J.D., knowing he was dying, willingly agreed. Two days later, he received the first dose of intravenous chemotherapy, and was given daily injections in the days that followed.”

    WTF? This is the example you used? A government funded research program?

  61. 61 portia1776

    Jez,

    “I’m the unprincipled one?” — Sorry to say, Jez, but it’s true. You have fallen so low as to be unable to affirm habeas corpus. For shame.

    “It is you who focus on on the very few patients who cannot access unapproved medications as an example of everything wrong with the FDA rather than focusing on the much more pervasive and threatening shortage of proven medications due to falling profit margins.” — I don’t care if it’s a single patient. The principle is the same for one individual or a million individuals. Each individual life is sacred. You, my friend, are not God. My principled position is that individuals should have final say about what they consume. You deny this even in its most morally grotesque form wherein the FDA denies terminally ill patients access to unapproved medications. This is not to say the FDA doesn’t do many other things that it should not. But then where have I ever said the FDA, if it should exist at all, should not be limited to establishing drug safety as opposed to efficacy?

    Jez, you’re cherry-picking from your own article. “…it wasn’t until the last two years that the situation reached epic proportions, spurred by production shutdowns caused by product contamination, material shortages, regulatory issues and other manufacturing problems, said Valerie Jensen, a pharmacist and expert on drug shortages with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Corporate mergers and cutbacks by generic drug makers seeking better profit margins made the situation even worse.”

    You write as if “made the situation even worse” reads “created the situation” when, by the FDA’s own account, a host of other issues are responsible including “product contamination, material shortages, regulatory issues and other manufacturing problems.”

    “There is no law nor regulation that the government imposes on pharmaceutical companies in terms of the quantities of drugs they produce.” — But there are regulations on factors that create barriers to entry and thus impact the quantities of drugs produced. Regulatory compliance costs reduce the number of producers. Fewer producers and less supply, means increased costs for consumers. This also makes the supply more susceptible to production problems, which seems to be a cost driver.

    “likely up to 84,000 Americans perish yearly because of lack of access to care from having no health insurance” — The study’s bottom line, so we quote it accurately, is “If the U.S. had achieved levels of amenable mortality seen in the three best-performing countries—France, Australia, and Italy—84,300 fewer people under age 75 would have died in 2006–2007 (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/In-the-Literature/2011/Sep/Variations-in-Amenable-Mortality.aspx).”

    Leaving to the side issues like France’s health care system is in some ways more competitive (has a greater degree of individual choice) than our own, there are a number of methodological assumptions that call into question this study’s findings.

    Several of these are dealt with in this article (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/03/myth-diagnosis/7905/) by Meghan McCardle, who is uninsurable within the existing cartelized US insurance market due to pre-existing conditions. I quote from her below at the risk that you consider the Atlantic too “esoteric” a source.

    Arriving at a yearly number, whether 20,000 as the Urban Institute found in a 2008 report or 84,000 in the study you cite (quite a discrepancy), is problematic because, for one reason, “the uninsured generally have more health risks than the rest of the population. They are poorer, more likely to smoke, less educated, more likely to be unemployed, more likely to be obese, and so forth. All these things are known to increase your risk of dying, independent of your insurance status….

    The possibility that no one risks death by going without health insurance may be startling, but some research supports it. Richard Kronick of the University of California at San Diego’s Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, an adviser to the Clinton administration, recently published the results of what may be the largest and most comprehensive analysis yet done of the effect of insurance on mortality. He used a sample of more than 600,000, and controlled not only for the standard factors, but for how long the subjects went without insurance, whether their disease was particularly amenable to early intervention, and even whether they lived in a mobile home. In test after test, he found no significantly elevated risk of death among the uninsured.

    This result is not, perhaps, as shocking as it seems. Health care heals, but it also kills. Someone who lacked insurance over the past few decades might have missed taking their Lipitor, but also their Vioxx or Fen-Phen. According to one estimate, 80,000 people a year are killed just by “nosocomial infections”—infections that arise as a result of medical treatment. The only truly experimental study on health insurance, a randomized study of almost 4,000 subjects done by Rand and concluded in 1982, found that increasing the generosity of people’s health insurance caused them to use more health care, but made almost no difference in their health status.”

    In your other favored study posted on ACEP, the same methodological problems persist. These lead me to shun even results “favorable” to my argument, including how it says that pneumonia suffers are better off uninsured than on Medicaid.

    “It was an article in a Massachusetts newspaper.” — Seriously, Jez, you’re inability to see what is plainly in front of your nose is worthy of Chris and Jimmy.

    The very first line of your article reads “A shortage of lifesaving drugs used on ambulances and in emergency rooms across Massachusetts.” How can you claim it is not about Massachusetts?!!! LOL. True, it also mentions the national shortage. And nothing in the article or in what I wrote precludes other states, perhaps even the ones you mention, from having shortages. The important point is that “it wasn’t until the last two years that the situation reached epic proportions.” Please remind me what has happened in the last 2 years that could possibly have caused this unprecedented change?

    “What is the matter with you?” — Allergies… I’m allergic to Mirons and thus immorality, illogic, authoritarianism, and mindless collectivism.

    “Is there no point you are willing to concede?” — Of course, my loyalty is first to the truth. Prove me wrong and I’ll concede the point with gratitude for having learned something. Too bad that, in the history of my writing here, that has never happened…. I’m waiting.

    “Even a free market fundamentalist like yourself” — So it is a “fundamentalist” position to affirm that individuals have unalienable civil and economic liberties? I guess upholding the first amendment makes me a “free speech fundamentalist” and the fourth amendment a “privacy fundamentalist.”

    What does that make you? A reactionary conservative of the Rick Santorum variety? Come to think of it, I’m not sure whether this is you or Santorum:

    “[Libertarians] have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do. Government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulation low and that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues, you know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world, and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone, that there is no such society that I’m aware of where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”

    “must agree that when the profit margin drops because, say, your patent expired, you lower production to a minimum.” — Why would you lower production when there is such a shortage that the customer is paying as much as 1,000 percent mark-up to a third-party? As the producer, wouldn’t you want to get a piece of that action? There are a couple possible explanations, but you have mentioned none of them.

    “It is also plain that it is the pursuit of higher margins that are making these inexpensive but lifesaving drugs more scarce.” — And again, that is more of a symptom than the cause.

    “The fact that price gouging exists is not a “feature” of a a free market system.” — But of course it is! The difference between what hospitals are paying and what producers are getting is signaling opportunity; there are profits to be made above and beyond what producers are currently earning. Why aren’t existing producers increasing production to fill the void? And why aren’t new producers entering what is a proven market (the dream of VCs)? The plain fact is that the specter of regulatory compliance costs and perhaps government interference on behalf of favored producers (just a guess) is dampening competition. You’re also not considering how Medicare/Medicaid, the largest purchaser of pharmaceuticals, has a market distorting effect on the price of drugs. Some hospitals may be willing to pay the mark-up (as the article states) but such purchases are obviously not enough.

    “While you may continue to cherry pick” — Strange how you have never found a single one of those supposed “cherries” to be wrong, isn’t it?

    “there is no reason in my opinion that millions of Americans must be sacrifice on your altar of the free market.” — LOL. This quote has the benefit of being both hollow and hilarious. Individual liberty does not necessitate mass sacrifices. Do you know what does? Continuing the failed statist/collectivist policies you support.

    What exactly is your solution to this drug shortage? Nationalize the producers? Set-up a government plant? Increase producer’s regulatory burdens and barriers to entering the market? Have Medicaid/Medicare pay less/more for drugs? I don’t mind proposing policy ideas (like the ones I did for Stratford yesterday), but do expect reciprocity.

  62. 62 portia1776

    “From the actual article:” — You write this as if quoting the article contradicts what I wrote of it, which is obviously ridiculous. The intravenous chemotherapy that J.D. received was “unproven and unregulated or approved by government.”

    “WTF? This is the example you used? A government funded research program?” – You are distorting what the article clearly says. The government funding was for the researching of “antidotes to chemical warfare agents” not oncology. Nitrogen mustard’s potential as a cancer treatment was a beneficial side product “suggested” by that research. No government planner came up with the idea. There was no government funding for its development. In fact, “Yale physicians began exploring” the drug despite the interference of the War Department. In fairness to the War Department, a war was on and they were probably justified in not wanting researcher’s attention diverted from the essential war effort.

    Your misreading allows you to miss the point. There is no mention here of the kind of FDA interference that you defend without defending now: “Yale physicians had been looking for a cancer patient willing to undergo experimental treatment with nitrogen mustard. J.D., knowing he was dying, willingly agreed. Two days later, he received the first dose of intravenous chemotherapy, and was given daily injections in the days that followed.”

    J.D. and his doctors decided on a course of treatment, the only options left him, and he received the treatment. There was no national government interference in J.D.’s medical care. He knew the risks and took a chance. Millions have benefited from that individual choice. Why do you irrationally, illegally (unconstitutionally), and cruelly insist upon defending, again without defending, a system that denies today’s J.D.’s the opportunity to potentially benefit themselves, others, and many more not yet born? That is a choice rightly left to the individual and their doctors.

  63. 63 jezebel282

    Portia,

    “You have fallen so low as to be unable to affirm habeas corpus. For shame.”
    Actually, in case you couldn’t tell, I just chose to ignore the “question”. Somehow I had this picture in my mind of Lucy holding a football…..

    “I don’t care if it’s a single patient.” Actually you do care. If, and only if, it supports a point you are about to make. On the other hand, anyone in the medical field is painfully aware that you can’t save everyone.

    tri·age
      noun, adjective, verb, -aged, -ag·ing.
    noun
    1.
    the process of sorting victims, as of a battle or disaster, to determine medical priority in order to increase the number of survivors.

    “Each individual life is sacred. You, my friend, are not God. My principled position is that individuals should have final say about what they consume. You deny this even in its most morally grotesque form wherein the FDA denies terminally ill patients access to unapproved medications.”

    Each individual life is sacred. Sadly, in the course of history, that is not evidenced by the actions of either governments or corporations. While some medications may have anecdotal evidence that they may be safe and effective for a small percentage of the population, they may not be for most of us. New technologies and medications may eventually lead to new protocols and standards, but I would rather that they go through a rigorous evaluation process before I subjected myself to them. I would even hesitate before I subjected you to them. However, if you insist on ingesting medications based upon some company’s word for it….I suppose in your case I would have to say “Go for it”.

    “But there are regulations on factors that create barriers to entry and thus impact the quantities of drugs produced. Regulatory compliance costs reduce the number of producers.”
    Sigh….it would be nice if we could stay on an issue that is clearly the primary concern. The problem cited in the articles is not the availability of new medications that have not met guidelines. The problem is with medications that have been around for decades. These are well known (well known to doctors, hospitals, emergency services etc) medications that all have generic versions that although not so profitable are nonetheless necessary. The free market does a piss poor job of supplying that type of product. But you can be damned sure that if you have dry eyes or restless leg syndrome…..

    “Please remind me what has happened in the last 2 years that could possibly have caused this unprecedented change?”
    Their patents have expired and generic versions can be manufactured. This year the patent for Viagra will expire. Would you like to hazard a guess what will happen to the price of sildenafil (Viagra)?

    “Of course, my loyalty is first to the truth. Prove me wrong and I’ll concede the point with gratitude for having learned something. Too bad that, in the history of my writing here, that has never happened…. I’m waiting.”
    Oy Vey! Well, at least you are humble.

    “Strange how you have never found a single one of those supposed “cherries” to be wrong, isn’t it?”
    Actually, I find them to be wrong in almost every instance.

    “Continuing the failed statist/collectivist policies you support.”
    You just can’t help yourself, can you?

    “What exactly is your solution to this drug shortage?”
    This will be difficult to explain since you have no understanding of the problem. Your understanding ends at the border of your philosophy and never crosses into other territories. It’s either the “free” market or Hellfire and brimstone. In this case, the demand is there but not the supply. The problem is created by the lack of a comfortably high profit margin. It is not as if the costs of the ingredients or processes have risen significantly. They have not.

    My solution would be similar to what we did in the early 1940’s. To get companies to produce war materials, we offered contracts with guaranteed profit margins. Voila! Tanks, planes, ships, guns and ammunition at a phenomenal rate. Now whether there is an organization of users (hospitals, doctors, patients) or a government agency that coordinates these low cost generics and offers contracts with guaranteed profit margins we will probably suffer (and die) due to continued shortages.

    “a system that denies today’s J.D.’s the opportunity to potentially benefit themselves, others, and many more not yet born?”
    This may be where our disconnect comes from. Perhaps you do not understand that experimental procedures are conducted every day in almost every hospital and medical school. I have personally seen neurosurgeons use tools manufactured by DeWalt and Black & Decker that were bought at Home Depot or Lowe’s. No FDA label on them. Why? Because they work better. That will then permeate the medical field. When a paramedic drills an intraosseous needle into your bone, it will likely be removed at the hospital by something with a label from Makita. Medical school staff make their living by trying to develop new, innovative and effective methods of medical care every single day. Not a single one of them has to call the FDA first.

  64. 64 1george1

    While Portia & Jeze debate macro issues,
    has Portia avoided debating my local issues?

    Maybe I should move these posts due to lack
    of relevance, per the Website name? 😉

  65. 65 sudds

    Yawwwwwwwwwwwn!!!!

  66. 66 jezebel282

    George,

    “Portia avoided debating my local issues?”

    I tried, George. I really did.

    Perhaps if you use the words “government” and “regulation” twice in once sentence?

  67. 67 1george1

    Cute baby.

    And the picture of sudds avatar is cute too.

  68. 68 1george1

    WIKIPEDIA:
    Habeas corpus (Latin: “you may have the body”)
    is a writ, or legal action, through which a prisoner can
    be released from unlawful detention, that is, detention
    lacking sufficient cause or evidence. The remedy can
    be sought by the prisoner or by another person coming
    to their aid.

    It has historically been an important legal instrument
    safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary state
    action. It is a writ requiring a person to be brought
    before a judge.

    A writ of habeas corpus, also known as the Great Writ,
    is a summons with the force of a court order;
    addressed to the custodian (a prison official for example)
    and demands that a prisoner be taken before the court,
    and that the custodian present proof of authority,
    allowing the court to determine whether the custodian
    has lawful authority to detain the person.
    If the custodian does not have authority to detain the
    prisoner, then he must be released from custody.

    GEORGE to ADDRESS Portia & Jezebel.
    1) I do not see a necessity that a person be a citizen to
    be allowed these “alienable rights?”
    It almost appears that Portia advocated A G A I N S T
    holding prisoners at GITMO?

    2) I’ve appeared in front of EVERY Stratford Town Council
    and Police Chief since 1998 and others by April 1995 and
    others since 1988 seeking investigation into a series of
    DEATHS.
    Chairman Malloy and other Chairs found unique ways around
    Habeas Corpus by ignoring the issues.
    Chairman Malloy found unique ways around the first Amendment
    by using FUZZY MATH to eliminate or minimize the 5 minute
    Public Forum speaking to 3 minutes and/or starting the quick
    count as soon as called.

    I wonder how many political people are fronts for murderers
    and other criminals?

    NOTE: Portia does not debate the ISSUES several posts up
    and in another string.
    FACT

    OPINION: Portia needs to argument the abstract while knowing
    the concrete and fears address reality which he and his peers
    have helped create?

  69. 69 1george1

    In Congress, nearly half the members are millionaires

    The Senate’s median net worth is $2.63 million; in the House, it’s $756,00. Given that, and the way this club often seems so out of touch with the rest of us, I’m making Congress my One-Percenter of the Week.
    By MSN Money partner on Thu, Jan 5, 2012 4:56 PM

    By Michael Brush

    Just a few days into the new year, and we’re already blitzed with wall-to-wall election coverage. But the fun is only just beginning. Before this election year is out, scores of congressional candidates will join the presidential contenders already dominating the airwaves.

    If you observe their endless debates and expensive attack ads and get a sense that these candidates are out of touch with many of the pedestrian problems faced by the rest of us — oh, say like trying to balance a family budget — it’s not just your imagination.

    While most Americans saw their incomes and wealth slip in the past several years, the wealth of our reps in Washington, D.C., has grown by leaps and bounds. The key takeaway here: Being a millionaire would make any normal person a One-Percenter, a member of the nation’s wealthiest group. In Congress, it just makes you average.

    So rather than a CEO this week — we’ll get back to them – I’m making Congress my One-Percenter of the Week.

    Consider these numbers:

    •Nearly half of the members of Congress are millionaires, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), a Washington watchdog.
    •The median net worth of a U.S. senator was $2.63 million in 2010, the most recent year for which financial data are available. That was up 11% from the year before, says CRP.
    •The median estimated net worth for House members was $756,765.
    •The median net worth of House members almost tripled from 1984 and 2009, while the net worth of Americans declined slightly during the same time, according to the Washington Post and the University of Michigan.

    “It’s no surprise that so many people grumble about lawmakers being out of touch,” said Sheila Krumholz, CRP executive director. And it’s not only the news of their costly yachts and expensive vacations that rankles.

    It’s also the sense that our One-Percenter reps in Washington aren’t doing enough to help the rest of us, perhaps because they are so distracted by their embarrassingly rancorous bipartisan arguing — which has earned them their most unfavorable ratings in years.

  70. 70 jezebel282

    “I wonder how many political people are fronts for murderers
    and other criminals?”

    And off we go….

  71. 71 1george1

    Jeze,

    If USA cocaine use was at 1950s levels, WHAT would the
    EFFECT be on:
    CRIME
    COURTS
    POLICE
    FAMILIES
    POLITICS

    In EMS service, they must see the effects of ALCOHOL,
    TOBACCO, & VARIOUS DRUGS (Controlled Substances) …

    If you chase nebulous arguments with Portia, which you know
    have little merit toward real world application …

    Why not address real world, front line problems, that
    EMS, POLICE, & FIRE see D A I L Y?

  72. 72 jezebel282

    George,

    “which you know have little merit toward real world application”

    You mean like the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group or the CIA?

  73. 73 1george1

    Bruce Allessie passed.
    Good man.

    Alot of BIG THINGS pending:
    Stratford Economic Development.
    Coincidence?

    Where will Bruce’s replacement be from?
    Connected to whom?
    Already picked?

    Bruce was a military vet and a decent person.

    If certain country club front peoples’ masters were involved,
    I would doubt
    Harkins would have known in advance ..
    I doubt DeCilio knew about Alex, if I am correct?

    I still wonder about Sylvia, Hugh Catalano, Ed Fennell, & others.

    For some people, it is about control and money.
    Even if there was far more money to be made other ways,
    without the violence and the pernicious nature of the plan.

  74. 74 jezebel282

    George,

    Bruce was indeed a good person. No matter who you were, he was glad to see you. It seemed like he knew just about everyone who lived in Stratford.

  75. 75 1george1

    Yup.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: