Sorry, that ship has sailed already.

Hello everyone.

Yes, I’ve been away…but…now, I’m back…um…well, I’m here, yes…here. Here is a good word to use and describes quite well my present mindset which considering the week long trek up to Boy Scout Summer camp has left me feeling both tired, and slightly less than rested.
However, I did take a moment to sit on a rock and ponder the lake, Shaver Lake that is. A man made water hole with a bit of interesting history.
Apparently the area under the lake was a small river running through what most easterners would call a “dell.” Up river a wee bit was an Indian village and down river a wee bit was a small town. The residents of the small town decided to “settle” the issue of the “Indian” up stream by wiping them out, whole sale. The chieftain, Chiwanakee, is said to have led three other warriors in a stop gap measure to delay the white men’s plans to kill the entire village. Thus giving the villagers time to split the scene.
Of course, as the government usually does, it settles these things by building a dam in 1911 and flooding the whole area.
Kind of settles the whole “this is my land” debate.
Go argue with the fish.
So I’m sitting there on this boulder over looking the lake and across from the Scout summer camp was another camp that seems, at least to me, to be a public camp. From there I can hear the screams of coeds in both fun…and um…pleasure.
“Give me back my panties!”
Ahahahaha…haha…ha...uh brother.
Sound carries over placid water…unfortunately.
Since I’m not a crowd man, I “volunteered” to stay and watch the camp fire as the boys went to the last camp fire of the week.
The coeds across had been having fun at the scouts expense, and I have to say, some scouts got an anatomy lesson from passing female boaters and skiers.
[Things that tell you the boy’s are seeing something that they are a little to young to see is when you hear a couple of them with binoculars saying, “Oh my G-d. Look at what those two girls are doing! That is so hot!”]
/facepalm

Anyway, back to my ruminations on the rock over the placid waters echoing the shrills of the coeds under a sky of blinking stars…I gave our country some serious thought…well, namely, I thought about the health care, the cries of “socialism”, and of course the pandering of the Republican talking points about how “evil” Obama is…really, that is what they are pandering. Not how we’re going to pay for the Health Care bill, or why they’re protecting their patrons asses forcing Americans to ask a for-profit insurance company whether or not they can get a treatment…nah…they use the tried and true… ”FEAR!”

In an exchange between a Congress critter and his district this exchange occurs.
“Madam, what are you afraid of?”
“I’m afraid of Obama!”
“Who told you to be afraid of Obama?”
“Glenn Beck showed me why!”
“Madam, may I suggest you turn off Glenn Beck.”
Crowd: “BOOOOOOOO!”

There you go our American democracy at work, G-d help us all.

So, as I sat on that rock, I had an epiphany, nay, a revelation supplied by a week of no news, and some time to process the crap…and here it is….

Ladies and Gentlemen of America.
Boys and girls, friends and foes, Republicans, Democrats, and everyone else lend me your ear for a brief, oh so brief moment.
You, yes all of you, me included, are all up in arms about the issue of health care, am I not correct on this?
Some have shouted, “I’m afraid of Obama’s socialism!”
Some have shouted, “Obama is a socialist!”
Others have snarled, “Death to Obama!”
While some have even suggested, “Obama is an Islamo-fascist!”
Whatever!

Now, ladies and gentlemen, I will not quibble that Universal Health Care is a socialist program, it is; however, I want to take you back a few years…yes, just a few so you can completely and fully understand the subject.

You, me, and the rest of the Americans of this former Republic have been, for the past forty years slowly, and progressively choosing Socialism. But wait, there are other things that have contributed to our steady rise to a Socialist polity.
You see, for the whole twentieth century has been one long growth of socialist government programs aimed at trying to enhance you, the average Joe and Jane American’s lives a little.
Public education…socialism.
Fire departments…socialism.
Police protection…socialism.
Social Security…socialism
Welfare….socialism
Food Stamps…socialism
Business subsidies…Socialism
Cooperate bailouts…Socialism
FICA…Socialism
Unemployment checks…socialism
Disability insurance…socialism
Medicare…socialism
Medicaid…Socialism
There are so many social programs...it's hard to count them all.
In fact, a great deal of our Government’s mandates are socialistic in that they are geared to help you, me, and our neighbors as well.
You see socialistic programs are not bad things, and have been run quite well…perfectly? Not so much, but they have been around for a very long time, and we all have benefited from them.
Therefore, what you, me, and everyone else has been voting for the past thirty years is which Socialist program we want.
The Republican Socialist program, or the Democrat Socialist program.
The Republican Socialist program can be summed up in five words, “Socialism for our rich donors.” or Corporate Socialism.
Yes, if you are rich, and are willing to share a few paltry dollars with the Republican party you too, can have a slough of Social programs aimed at you: Tax cuts for the wealthy in which you get to keep your dollars while the dwindling pretenders in the middle class with the proudly growing poorer class shoulder more of the national debt. On top of those tax cuts comes the promise of tax-payer bailouts for your companies, insurance institutions, and of course your investment companies all supplied by those pathetic putzs in the middle and poorer classes. All in all, the Republican Party has proven itself a trustworthy partner with the Rich in protecting them and keeping them rich.

The Democrat Socialist program can be summed up in seven words, “Dude, seriously, we’re trying to help you.”
Now, the Democrats aren’t the classiest bunch in the classroom, but their hearts are in the right place. They want everyone to have equal access to the good life.
You in the trailer park with the keg for a belly, drinking your third case of bud for the day, flipping your mullet to impress the wife and the twelve year old girl next door…even though you are the laughing stock of the neighborhood, and the proud example of what our poor education system has produced even you are deserving of having a shot at the good life.

So when you get your panties all bunched up in a knot in your crack about Obama being a Socialist, or Socialism in general try to remember that we’re already a Socialist nation…the debate truly is…which Socialist Platform do you want.
Republican or Democrat.
Choose…wisely.

Everything

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

This interview was on Hardball last night.

I couldn't think of a better title for this than what I have, because to my mind it does encompass "everything" that is right and good about America and "everything" that is bad, deficient.

Good because this girl is brave enough to go on national television to defend her demands of Sen. Specter. She's a decent human being who has simple decent goals for her family and I don't think anyone can fault her for wanting that.

What is bad, however, is that she's a conduit for points of view that may not have her best interests in mind. I really doubt she knows what life in Russia is or was like and she apparently does not understand the "socialism" of Social Security and Medicare let alone the concept of Constitutional Law.

A very large portion of the American electorate is ignorant of the basic issues behind all our lives. A major cause for that fact is that nearly all of our media is part of corporate businesses, our media who, as my boy Olbermann has said more than a few times, are successful when they make money for their owners, and he does make money for GE and they keep him on the air despite the continuing feud with NewsCorp.

The Washington Post was recently caught trying to sell their influence to the rich and powerful, David Gregory of Meet the Press told Governor Sanford he'd get the best treatment of his issue on his show, John Solomon offered to help cover up possible criminal political activity, it's all about access, getting the scoop, the ratings and advertizing money.

We desperately need to get the influence of money out of our politics and print/radio/video media.

I don't know the best way to do that, but I believe it's vital for our country's democracy to do so.

A good start would be to get the lies and the lying liars who tell them out of our public discourse.

Update: Down in the comments, Publius saw through Katy's persona toute suite. Joan Walsh at salon.com:

{QUOTE}While Abram told MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell that she wasn't very sophisticated about politics, and claimed not to even know her family income, in fact she's a leader of the ( Glen Beck's ) 9/12 group, setting up its networking site on Ning, greeting new members, inviting folks to events at her home and elsewhere – and last night, after her star turn, comparing her cause to that of Martin Luther King Jr.{END QUOTE}

Click for Abram's site.

Rick Perlstein has a good read in WaPo:

Here's a piece of it, but all of it is worth the 5 minutes:

{QUOTE}It used to be different. You never heard the late Walter Cronkite taking time on the evening news to "debunk" claims that a proposed mental health clinic in Alaska is actually a dumping ground for right-wing critics of the president's program, or giving the people who made those claims time to explain themselves on the air. The media didn't adjudicate the ever-present underbrush of American paranoia as a set of "conservative claims" to weigh, horse-race-style, against liberal claims. Back then, a more confident media unequivocally labeled the civic outrage represented by such discourse as "extremist" -- out of bounds.

The tree of crazy is an ever-present aspect of America's flora. Only now, it's being watered by misguided he-said-she-said reporting and taking over the forest. Latest word is that the enlightened and mild provision in the draft legislation to help elderly people who want living wills -- the one hysterics turned into the "death panel" canard -- is losing favor, according to the Wall Street Journal, because of "complaints over the provision."{END QUOTE}

.

That Devil Forrest! : An Example of Military Genius?

Nathan Bedford Forrest is one of the most controversial commanders in US military history. Slave trader, plantation owner, (un)successful businessman, gambler, philanthropist, LtGeneral of Confederate Cavalry in the Civil War, and finally as a Grand Wizard in the original Klu-Klux, he is revered by some (perhaps some who should not revere him) and hated by others (who perhaps should take a more careful look).

Was he a war criminal for what happened at Fort Pillow in April 1864? And how could one of the prime movers behind the formation of the Klu-Klux order its disbandment in 1869 and then even offer the state government of Tennessee in 1874 to “exterminate” those who had refused to disband?

Forrest was needless to say a complex man, but if the war records, and much of what has been written since, are to be believed also a 24-caret military genius.

Back to theory now. How would one define a military genius?

Clausewitz defined military genius as a “harmonious combination of elements, in which one or the other ability may predominate, but none may be in conflict with the rest”. What types of societies produce such genius? “The smaller the range of activities of a nation and the more the military factor dominates, the greater will be the incidence of military genius. This, however is true only of its distribution, not its quality. The latter depends on the general intellectual development of a given society. . .” (Book 1, Chapter 3, On War).

The main point to consider about this concept of military genius is that it is the prime element which counteracts friction in war.

Antullio J. Echevarria provides us more on this:

GENIUS, A BALANCE OF INTELLECT AND CHARACTER

Military genius, according to Clausewitz, consisted of a harmonious balance of several qualities belonging to reason (Verstand) and passion (Gemüt), or what we might refer to, while admittedly taking some liberties, as sense and sensibility. The latter category included energy (Energie), steadfastness (Festigkeit), resolve (Standhaftigkeit), strength of temperament (Gemütsstärke), and strength of character (Charakterstärke).

As mentioned earlier, these served as a counterweight to the elements of danger, physical exertion, uncertainty, and chance, which made up the atmosphere of war; . . . Energy was necessary to overcome the resistance of one's enemy as well as the inertia of one's own military machine; it might take the form of a commander's personal quest for glory, or his desire to satisfy his own honor.

Although these motives were often regarded as negative, Clausewitz believed they could prove more powerful, and thus more valuable, than other passions, such as patriotism, fanaticism, and revenge. Steadfastness and resolve go hand-in-hand: the former refers to the ability to stay focused when confronted by sudden adversities; the latter means the capacity to remain committed over the long haul. Strength of temperament best equates to self-discipline, the ability to listen to the voice of reason in the midst of even the strongest of emotional appeals—to maintain one's perspective. Strength of character, a common term throughout the nineteenth and most of the twentieth century, means strength of conviction, which might stem from many factors, but—ideally—came from an unshakeable belief in correct principles; in contrast, obstinacy was blind adherence to unfounded or incorrect ideas, and thus was a perversion of strength of character, and so was to be avoided. Once again, therefore, we see the importance of objective knowledge in the formulation of judgment.

In a sense, all of these qualities fall under the heading of physical and psychological courage. Physical courage means the ability to function in spite of the debilitating influence of danger and the physical privations of war; psychological courage refers to the capacity to accept responsibility, to make decisions in times of crisis.

Yet, the central point of this chapter of On War is that all of these qualities would come to naught without the use of the intellect. The ability to penetrate the fog of uncertainty that surrounds events in war, and to exercise sound judgment, was essential. This higher use of the intellect required a certain coup d'œil—an innate ability to see in an instant the true significance of manifold things or events, to grasp the situation completely and precisely even as it unfolded. Put simply, coup d'œil describes the ability to see simultaneously with the physical as well as the mind's eye. As mentioned previously, this talent could be nurtured by acquiring correct knowledge of war.

Together, these were the qualities essential for successful command at high levels, and Clausewitz believed one could find them in evidence in each of history's great military commanders: Alexander, Hannibal, Gustavus Adolphus, and Frederick the Great. However, he did not limit genius only to such lofty heights. In his view, true genius was the harmonious union of the traits of temperament and intellect in such a way that each cooperated with, rather than opposed, the others. While some scholars believe Clausewitz's model for genius was Napoleon, it was probably Scharnhorst, whose traits were balanced. Napoleon's character was weighted toward arrogant recklessness, and thus not balanced enough for true genius. In Clausewitz's studies of the 1814 and 1815 campaigns, moreover, he more than once sought to deflate the Corsican's growing legend, though he clearly admired aspects of his way of waging war. The officer he most admired was his friend and mentor Scharnhorst, to whom he owed a great deal.

Possessing all the qualities mentioned above was not enough to qualify as a genius, however; they also had to work together. The message was, simply, that favoring one type of quality, such as energy, led to an imbalance, a character flaw that adversity would overwhelm, or an adversary would exploit.

Clausewitz and Contemporary War, pp108-9

Military genius can use theory to understand what is going on, but more importantly genius operates “beyond theory” since genius is able to understand the application of the military means (beyond simple tactics to operations and the achievement of strategic aims) acting/reacting within a resistance environment. That is how these means are used during a specific epoch, in effect the genius creating an “art of war” for that epoch, which others attempt to copy. Strategic theory in turn attempts to incorporate these “insights” into the further development of theory. Thus strategic theory is the retrospective attempt to codify military genius developing an art of war for a specific epoch - as well as testing the tenets of the general theory which covers all wars. . .

Thus concerning the genius there is a very important temporal component: the military genius, unlike the avante garde artist, is very much a person of his times. Whereas, like the artist, the military genius creates and provides models for others to follow, which in both cases does not mean that those who follow will be able to achieve the same results.

Later in that same chapter Echevarria goes into the distinction between the military genius and the “brilliant military mind”, quoting Clausewitz’ contemporary Kiesewetter, “A brilliant mind is one who makes discoveries in science, a person who, with respect to knowledge, is original. A genius is that person who, in works of fine art, delivers exemplary products . . . achieves originality . . . Newton was a brilliant mind and Horace was a genius”. Put another way, the brilliant mind follows the rules and makes an original discovery, whereas the genius makes his own rules and creates an achievement of originality.

Or, in our case War as social relationship and military genius as art. Logistics, communication, technical intelligence collection . . . as brilliance, in other words staff . . .

So how does Nathan Bedford Forrest measure up as a military genius?

In 1861 Forrest was a successful business man and plantation owner in western Tennessee close to Memphis. He had no military training or experience although had grown up on the frontier, was used to a rough life, and had hunted and ridden a horse since childhood. He enlisted as a private, but was quickly elected to the rank of LtCol by the cavalry regiment he had raised himself. He distinguished himself in his first action against Federal troops in December 1861.

He had the innate ability (coup d'œil or in German Takt des Urteils) to size up an enemy situation and know whether it was ripe for a cavalry charge or not. This he gained from personal reconnaissance without field glasses. He trusted his own eyes better.

Far from being reckless, he gave the impression to some other commanders as being too skeptical, asking numerous questions and demanding accurate intelligence in the planning of an operation, and then acting with absolute decisiveness once he had made up his mind to act. Forrest was also a master at what the Soviets would later refer to as maskirovka (not just camouflage, but active deception as well) in that some of his greatest triumphs were escaping from pursuit (by simply hiding his command in a woods) and in getting superior Union forces to surrender to him after elaborate ruses to convince them of his “overwhelming strength”. Having experienced US Grant’s use of psychological means (his demand of “Unconditional Surrender!” at Fort Donelson in 1862) Forrest used the same methods reinforced with his well-earned reputation for fierceness to demand the same from several unlucky Union commanders who crossed his path.

He had incredible drive and energy and being a physically powerful man would help to manhandle horses and artillery across rivers, offering an inspiring example to both his officers and men.

At the tactical level, Forrest developed several innovative cavalry manoeuvres and pioneered close coordination of artillery with his cavalry acting as infantry. Discarding the cavalry saber as a preferred weapon early on, his troops fought mostly with pistols and on foot, using the shock action of the mounted charge when he best sensed it would bring about a decision. In battle Forrest was brutal and fearless, leading countless charges and having at least 29 horses shot from under him in action. He was also an expert at close combat, credited with single-handedly killing 30 Federal soldiers and officers in personal combat, at times outnumbered three to one. He was both loved and feared by his men: calm, quiet and even gentle in garrison, battle transformed Forrest into a red-faced demon, a veritable “steam engine of war”. “War means fighting, and fighting means killing” was his view of war and “shoot any man who won’t fight!” was his first order of battle to his officers.

Forrest was able to transfer this tactical success to the operational, and even strategic level. His actions in Tennessee challenged Union control of that state and his raids kept Sherman looking over his shoulder during his advance through Georgia. Forrest almost single-handedly kept the Southern cause alive in not only Tennessee but Kentucky and northern Mississippi as well, and was able to recruit new units even in Union occupied areas as late as mid-1864. Given his correct assessments of the situations at Fort Donelson and Shiloh in 1862, Chickamauga in 1863, and Franklin in 1864, and his keen understanding of the importance of communications and logistics in the warfare of his time, had Forrest been given the command of the Confederate Army of Tennessee in 1862, or at the least been allowed to deal with Sherman’s advance in the manner he had argued, the course of the American Civil War would have been quite different.

Not that this be taken as harping over “the lost cause”, Forrest, while not arguing for secession in 1861, admitted that the war was “about slavery”, that is his genius and the horrible sacrifices of his countrymen, let alone the tragic damage they did to the country as a whole, were for a criminal cause. This being not the last time that the genius and human potential of a capable people would be abused and squandered on a twisted and inhuman dream.

So, Nathan Bedford Forrest is my example of a true military genius following Clausewitz’s definition. A fitting close would be to read Forrest’s farewell address to his troops issued at his surrender.

Is there any one else you consider a military genius in this regard as well, especially since Forrest’s time?

Why is a military genius such a rare commodity?

What would “military genius” entail today?

What is the effect of strategic culture on the formation of a military genius?

Sooner or Later, Things Start to Make Sense

Way back in grad school, I studied public sector cost/benefit analysis. The prof, an economist of reasonable standing, and a truly gifted classroom presence took us into the intricacies of understanding non-quantifiable costs and benefits. In short, he was addressing the difficulty of a "numbers only" methodology, and the "courage", as he defined it, of honestly addressing the non-quantifiable rather then hiding behind the numbers.

16 years later (1992), while traveling in Russia, we became friends with Vladimir, a faculty member at the Merchant Marine Academy in St Petersburg. In explaining to us the inevitable fall of the USSR, Vlad addressed the fallacy of the Soviet GDP, in that it was so heavily influenced by what he called unnecessary, dead end public works projects. One example he offered was the massive open air concert plazas along the Volga canal. As he described it, they created short term WPA style jobs while being built, and a couple of jobs keeping them clean over the years, but the only concerts most ever hosted were on the day the specific plaza was completed. His point was that no society can benefit from an endless string of low wage public works projects, especially when it is a closed economy, even though they were posting nice GDP numbers to compete with the West's numbers. He said, "GDP rose and we lived like livestock."

Just recently, I watched a WingNut spout packaged GDP ratios and the like to claim that life in America is fabulous, almost everyone is doing quite well, the current recession is just a minor inconvenience, unregulated capitalist creators of wealth will come to save the day and "no one will be turned away from the emergency room" - so no other country or "system" is worthy of comparison. Of course, it was clear that he had no idea about the numbers he was using other than they were right wing talking points. Oh, yes, the US also has the most obese poor in the world, which he said was a clear indicator of what a pack of whiners the poor are. As one fellow quipped off line, "He wouldn't know a GDP is it bit him on the ass."

Zoom to the present, and we find this quite interesting piece! My economics prof's viewpoint and Vlad's evaluation both eloquently stated, and my conclusion therefrom confirmed.

Numbers are not in any measure the end all/be all descriptors of the human condition.

Actually, it's been bad for some 10 years

While folks are bemoaning the current economic crisis, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has been reporting information for some 10 years that show it hasn't been good for at least 10 years!

In short, jobs in the private sector have been decreasing since shortly after the start of the Bush administration. All this "private enterprise" and "ownership society" crap, and jobs were declining constantly in the private sector. The only saving grace was that "THE ENEMY", government was hiring. But every right winger I know will tell me that the voodoo economics they espouse builds wealth and creates jobs.

WASF, and deserve it!

Al

"...he IS a corrupt idiot."

Slavoj Žižek has an interesting article up at the London Review of Books discussing the hollowing out of Western democracy. I'd opine that his case is arguable - it rests on Italian democracy, never the strongest of reeds. But he makes several worthwhile points:

"It is democracy’s authentic potential that is losing ground with the rise of authoritarian capitalism, whose tentacles are coming closer and closer to the West. The change always takes place in accordance with a country’s values: Putin’s capitalism with ‘Russian values’ (the brutal display of power), Berlusconi’s capitalism with ‘Italian values’ (comical posturing). Both Putin and Berlusconi rule in democracies which are gradually being reduced to an empty shell, and, in spite of the rapidly worsening economic situation, they both enjoy popular support (more than two-thirds of the electorate)."

He has a great deal to say about the recent political crisis in Iran, and discusses European democracy in detail, but some of what he discusses touches on our present political condition:

"With Ronald Reagan (and Carlos Menem in Argentina), a different figure entered the stage, a ‘Teflon’ president no longer expected to stick to his electoral programme, and therefore impervious to factual criticism (remember how Reagan’s popularity went up after every public appearance, as journalists enumerated his mistakes). This new presidential type mixes ‘spontaneous’ outbursts with ruthless manipulation."

Worth a read.

God Grant You Many Years, Mr. Olbermann

As I noted before, I tend to dither over topics. With all the general bad news, doom and gloom, unemployment, the general state of affairs in our Republic ( that is, if you still think it is one ), there certainly are many choices to select from and chew on for a while.

Right now, for me, the top 2, and I can't decide which is number 1, are our foreign wars and health care reform. And to be honest, it does not matter which one is tops.

Then there's the sad state of our "independent press", which was orginally enshrined in the Bill of Rights to protect us against abuse from our government. A task which it has failed to do in my opinion, because of the lack of independence due to the corporate powers behind all our media.

I was planning to write on our media, and I was mulling all I wanted to write about that topic over the past week. Maybe later, and maybe someone else can take that up.

But our national "dicussion" ( if you wish to call it that ) over health care has been a constant voice in both ears. One voice is the debate itself and the politics surrounding it and the other voice is the manner in which our news media are handling it.

I have been following the stories about health care reform, especially at FDL which has been tirelessly working on Congress and its reading public to fire up support for reform and to poll individual members of Congress to make pledges for reform or at least to hear what they say about it.

And then Jane Hamsher wrote this:

The progressive caucus is being laughed at by Nancy Pelosi, who joined with Rahm Emanuel to give the Blue Dogs everything they want:
.
.
Nobody takes the progressive caucus seriously, and rightfully so. They do nothing but make idle threats that they don't follow through on.

If people in their districts don't start screaming and demanding that they stand up, we're looking at a health care bill with "co-ops" that will be nothing but a bail out of the insurance industry.

They're pathetic.

Well, that certainly popped my bubble of enthusiasm. Then there was the news of the organized disruption of town-hall meetings and the usual Republican and WingNut stupidity and lies about everything, from Cash for Clunkers to Obama's birth and everything between.

I was beginning to feel like Marvin the Robot.

Now, I won't go into the mangy mess of the now doubted story in the New York Times about the secret deal between Murdoch and GE to shut down the "feud" between Olbermann and O'Reilly, because that IS another story.

Plus it's in the wee hours of Tuesday morning, I'm tired, can't sleep, and if I don't get this out, I'll fret about it all night, and I do not want that. Writing is cathartic; I'm sure most will agree to that.

So, to wind this up, I was looking forward to watch Countdown yesterday evening, as I usually do, to see what KO's response to the NYT story would be. He put the reporter who wrote the story on his 3 worst persons list for, in brief, not getting the story right.

What blew me out of the water, however, was his Special Comment broadside against Congressional opposition to health care reform with a strong public option.

Here's the MSNBC link to the video.

I'm aware of the criticism some have for CountDown, but I've always liked his show, and try to catch it whenever I can. The greatest point in his favor is that he does present the best possible reporting of a story and does not hesitate to name the people behind the story, which he most certainly does in the video I linked to. Best because, I believe he's honest about his work and has passion for dealing with this country's problems. Next to that is that there is no hesitation to make time for corrections when needed. For me, his show is a bright streak of color set against the bland, superficial, "he said/he said" of the rest.

You know, like normal intelligent conversation compared to this:



This Special Comment could be the spark for a regeneration of the effort to carry health care reform, with a strong public option ( I prefer a single-payer system, if you want to know ) through the next couple of months.

And do call your Representative and Senators to push them to support this benefit to our country.

bb