I'm not sure how much celebration is in order, here. Most of the people benefitting from SCHIP are middle-class families who already have insurance. And the program expansion's funding comes almost entirely from tobacco taxes--in other words, on the backs of primarily lower class, uninsured workers.

Can we say "regressive", class?

Smoking's a choice, with broader societal costs.

Smoking's a choice, with broader societal costs.

Ah yes, because we all know how EASY it is to quit smoking.

Of course, if everyone does quit smoking because of the higher taxes, there's no funding for SCHIP.

Not really win, win, is it?

Socialism? Sure Rudy G. the two year old name caller has done it again but Dean Baker fires back as does this Angrybear. Seems picking on Canada, France, and the UK has a wee problem. Their health care systems do more for less money than ours. Karl Marx has to be laughing in his grave at Sir Rudy.

I quit smoking after six years and after acquiring a two-pack-a-day habit. I quit by throwing away my cigarettes and my matches. It was tough for the first three weeks, especially as I worked in an office where nearly everyone else smoked as they saw fit. After three weeks, my acute craving for smoking slowly subsided.

So, folks, I quit smoking by quitting smoking. Cold turkey. No drugs, no patches. And I never smoked again.

If I can do it anyone can.

So stop whining and just stop, if you haven't already. You're polluting someone else's air.

Bunch of overgrown infants.

Prediction: Bush does nothing, he lets the bill become law w/o signing. Classic passive agressive stuff: to his base, he will talk up his refusal to sign; to the rest of us he will refer to the "bipartisan" effort to help children (for a similar history, see Gov. Bush and the Texas Patient's Bill of Rights)

Alternatively, George Bush might come to his senses

It's more likely we will all get ponies for Christmas.

So the Dems are going to deny the benefits of free market to the poor children of the parents who screw up and not get a well paying job to support their offspring.

I thought Dems are for the poor and the downtrodden, especially the children among these unfortunate people.

Well, I've never smoked a cigarette in my life, but I am led to believe that quitting is extremely hard for some people. I also know people who had heavy habits and managed to just quit, but they seem to be a special minority. I am all in favor of universal access to health care or even universal health care in this country, but I don't think that we will manage to extend it to everyone by an ever-increasing tax on cigarettes. Or let's put it this way -- as a biologist I strongly urge people (especially the young) not to smoke, but once people start smoking, about one-fourth of them become addicted, and they are probably going to smoke for the rest of their lives. How long shall we keep punishing them for the mistake they made at an earlier time in their lives? Many of us would take a more understanding approach for those addicted to opioid substances (at least I would), so why punish nicotine addicts for their physiological condition? I will draw the line on people blowing smoke in my direction, as that affects me, but what they do in the privacy of their own homes is not of interest to me.

Yeah, he'll "come to his senses" allright - and take credit for the bill.

As Dan (above) alluded to, he did that throughout his Texas gubernorship; legislation that he opposed but failed to prevent, he took credit for. He was a successful gubner.

Petraeus = Surgin' General.

This is great news. I don't care what Bush tries to take credit for. If we can get health care for more kids, then let's do it. That's what being a liberal (or progressive if you prefer) should be about.

Most of the people benefitting from SCHIP are middle-class families who already have insurance.

I keep hearing this, but never see any data. Can somebody give us something besides talking points?

"Every man must decide whether he will walk in the creative light of altruism
or the darkness of destructive selfishness. This is the judgment.
Life's persistent and most urgent question is-- what are you doing for others?"
Martin Luther King, Jr. Minister and Campaigner for Social Justice through Nonviolent Voluntary Action (1929-1968)

"You can't run a government solely on a business basis...Government should be human. It should have a heart."
Herbert Henry Lehman, American political leader (1878-1963)

Speaking of quotes, this statement is from George Bush in his 2007 state of the union address:

"A future of hope and opportunity requires that all our citizens have affordable and available health care. When it comes to health care, government has an obligation to care for
the elderly, the disabled, and poor children. And we will meet those responsibilities."

His recent remarks show he thinks America's already booming and profitable insurance industry will suffer more than America's poor if this bill is passed.

>>>> and trillions for war, but what about the poor?

It would be REALLY COOL to have a war tax on gasoline, completely covering the cost of the occupation of Iraq. Who could possibly be against putting the war on a "pay as you go" basis?

I'm sure George will stomp his feet, stick out his tongue and go sulk in the corner, like any brain-damaged emotionally retarded spoiled brat would.

Bad Jim,

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad idea, the gas tax to pay for Iraq.

Up the capital gains or dividends tax rates and put the cost of the war on the backs of the people who earned it.

So the Dems are going to deny the benefits of free market to the poor children of the parents who screw up and not get a well paying job to support their offspring.

I thought Dems are for the poor and the downtrodden, especially the children among these unfortunate people.
Posted by: gregor on August 3, 2007 at 2:45 AM

I take it you prefer the Heritage Foundation's alternatives to SCHIP.

How will those newly covered children ever get the
hip replacements they need now?

And last night the television programs were FLOODED with advertisements urging me to contact Congressman Graves (who he is, I don't know. Oh, Missouri's 6th District. Hmmm, I'm in the KC area) to TELL him not to cut funding to Medicare Advantage.

The 'characters' in the ad were well-dressed elderly people of both sexes and a mix of ethnic backgrounds -- acting concerned that we're going to cut Medicare.

I hope we've got something planned to make it clear to people that Medicare isn't really being cut by this legislation.

Can we FLOOD television with our own Ads?

I'm hardcore against socialist medicine, but at the same time, damn, let the poor kids have their health care. Seriously, Bush shouldn't be worrying about government spending to give some kids health care; he should be worrying about vetoing corporate welfare for big agricultural corporations, public welfare for NASA, $25 billion of pork barrel spending, and $15 billion of foreign aid welfare for corrupt foreign governments.

By not taking on these issues, and "taking on" lower class kids instead, Bush has officially established himself as a man who seems to want to destroy the Republican Party. He's a good and God fearing man, but damn, he just doesn't know what he's doing. And the GOP can't be led by that guy.

Reagan and Bush Sr. both called for Nixon's resignation over trivial matters, such as Watergate (which was basically a repeat of what Lyndon Johnson did to the RNC in 1964). Bush's blunders, the Iraq War, plus tax dollar welfare for the strong (there's no way Bush can make the hard case for reducing government as a whole if he doesn't reduce it for the rich), are far more destructive than anything Nixon did (then again, it might just seem that way to a right-wing wing-nut like me).

Because Bush abandoned our values, it's time for the Republican Party to abandon Bush.

As for the Democrats, go the moderate Bill Clinton route. Like nominate a bunch of pro-gun, pro-life, military veteran Democrats to run in the swing states, like you did in 2006, and you won't be stopped.

Republicanism, shorter version: "Republicans want to take food out of poor kids' mouths."

Actually, I think the cigarette tax controversy misses the point. It is as Anonymous says a regressive tax that hurts the poor. And I agree that's bad.

However, as Matthew Yglesias and others have pointed out: creating and expanding government programs is hard but reducing or ending programs is almost impossible. Once we get universal health care, no Republican will ever be able to feasibly end it-and that's why they fight tooth and nail against any change in government programs.

That was the ARRP's rationale with Bush's Medicare prescription drug plan. Yes, of course it sucked, but at least it was something. And once they got that entitlement they knew they'd never loose it. So they figured they could actually take this awful program and improve on it over time.

So with SCHIP, yes taxing smokers to pay for it is a bad idea, but that's the only tax that Republicans will ever seriously consider to fund it. In other words, for the bill to pass with veto proof majorities cigarette taxes are probably the only way to fund SCHIP.

But once we expand it, it won't matter how we fund it in the future. And on the flip side it may dissuade people from smoking which is always a good thing.

Medicare Advantage costs 12% more than regular medicare while providing the same services. Know where the 12% goes--insurance company overhead. Medicare Advantage is one of the those insurance company welfare programs loved by the Heritage Foundation.

I am not surprised by the commercials. Corporate welfare queens don't want to give up their second homes. I am surprised to hear that Sam Graves is considered a possible vote for SCHIP.

Is it just me or is it completely disgusting that the most furor (and the most obstructionist methods) were not against labor provisions (which Reps hate even though they have saved capitalism) nor against some similar Republican bogeyman, but against healthcare for children? Where do these people get off? A bill supported by 46 governors is not good enough for the House Republicans.

Bush will sign and take credit for it along with a signing statement that will muck it up.

Ah, Kevin.

Not sure why your celebrating.

Is there anything compassionate about extending SOCAILIZED medicine to millions of poor children and closing off all other alternatives to them. How many poor children will now die because an inefficient government has decided in it omnivorous wisdom has decided to expand its influence in their lives, and they will now be burdened with lower quality care and huge waiting lines.

Forgive me if I hear the teardrops of poor children this morning.

Ah, Egbert

The sound you hear isn't teardrops of poor children. It's the weeping of people who read your posts and suddenly discover just how dumb people can be.

Hey egbert,

Your boys want to create a giant government subsidy program. Feed the sick sparrows by feeding oats to the horses. The corporate horses shit and the sparrows eat the leftovers.

As to longer waiting lines and poor quality, the program has been in place for 10 years and everybody agrees it is working great. No long lines. Quality just as good as anybody receives. It just cuts out the insurance company middleman who doesn't provide any real added value.

President Bush is right to oppose this bill. If people are exposed to socialized medecine as children, they will lose their natural American aversion to socialism. Within a generation our way of life could be lost.

When Republicans and idiots (Egbert) speak about healthcare, it almost seems like they do so without recognizing the basic facts of the surrounding the issue.

Egbert,

There are no other alternatives for these children. They, like me, have no insurance and not because we don't want it, but because we cannot afford it.

Al,

For 10 years our kids have been exposed socialism (OMG! how can we survive?) and yet I have not seen in my generation any dimunition in the belief that capitalism is the only system that works. If you prefer these children to die in overcrowded hospitals, then you are idiot, because that is more expensive then preventive care.

Noah, You have hit on exactly why the SCHIP program has expanded over the years to cover 45% of all children. More and more parents are unable to afford health care. It has just become too damn expensive. The insurance companies whose profits are enhanced by high costs have done nothing to solve the expense problem. They have no free market incentive. In fact the way they are paid provides insurance companies a disincentive.

Alex Knapp on August 3, 2007 at 1:23 AM:

Of course, if everyone does quit smoking because of the higher taxes, there's no funding for SCHIP...Not really win, win, is it?

Of course, if everyone quits smoking because of higher taxes, the money saved by not having to treat un- or under-insured cancer and emphysema patients could probably be used to fund the SCHIP.

So, yes, it could be considered a win-win...And even if funding from tobacco taxes doesn't cover the cost of the SCHIP, it's still the right thing to do.

This is great. We need to expand government care to replace, as much as possible, the failed and overly expensive private sector, which does not work in this case.

The American health care system is simply a shame. It is a human shame and a national shame. The entire perspective- for profit- on which it is built is morally reprehensible and it does nothing but underserve the well-being of American citizens. This comes as no surprise given that business is interested in serving those that can pay which are only a subset of those that have a need. The entire system should be undermined; tweaking the more inhumane bits solves nothing.

Fifty years ago the United States was the envy of the world, but no more. The insufficient health care system, the decaying and poorly planned infrastructure, the underfunded schools, the insufficient support for families- despite all the rhetoric, the unresponsive and relatively undemocratic political system, the income disparity, indeed the decline in relative height and growing obesity of Americans are all signs of a society run for the few and not for the well-being of the entire citizenry.

Reagan and Bush Sr. both called for Nixon's resignation over trivial matters, such as Watergate (which was basically a repeat of what Lyndon Johnson did to the RNC in 1964)

I have a Ph.D. in modern American political history, and this is all news to me.

Reagan and Nixon hated each other, but I've seen no record of Reagan calling on Nixon to resign. Bush Sr. was a loyal Republican to the end -- Nixon made him head of the RNC -- and his diary entry for the resignation is full of sadness and regret.

And Lyndon Johnson bugged the RNC in 1964? He had his men break into their offices? He had the CIA, FBI, IRS and Defense intelligence agencies involved in a cover-up?

Can you provide a valid source for any of this? Because it's all news to the historical profession, believe me.

Here's the problem I have with this deal (and it's a small one at that):

Why make funding dependent on something that you actually want people to stop doing?

Think about it ...

Say I own a restaurant, and my sister comes to me for financial help. It wouldn't make much sense for me to raise the price of everything on the menu, and then tell everyone I can to not eat there.

But that's what our gov't does with cigarette taxes, and I just don't get it.

Don't get me wrong -- I am a smoker, and actually don't give a rat's ass if they charged $10 a pack (I'd quit by then). Smoking is a choice and a dumb one at that.

It just doesn't seem to make much sense to make the thing over-dependent on an unreliable source of income.

.

Egbert and Al have convinced me.

We should let the children die rather than have them exposed to the horrors of SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!

Do you people even realize what ghouls you've become?

"For the life of me, I can't understand why the president would want to veto this legislation," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the Finance Committee chairman. "It's moderate, it's bipartisan, it helps low-income kids. ... It's just the right thing to do for the country."

Well, I understand:

Bush is not a moderate guy.

Bush is not a bipartisan guy.

The arrogant frat-boy class warrior detests low-income kids and thinks everyone should have to make it in the world like he did - off daddy's money, power, and connections, rather than through performance and ability.

Bush wants to deny Democrats any political accomplishment, no matter who gets hurt.

Bush currently gets to approve exceptions to the spending cap and, thus, gets the credit for giving the states more money than they were originally entitled to receive (despite hypocritically criticizing the Democratic legislation for just that reason) rather than Congress getting the credit and he gets to pick and choose which states get the exceptions so he can funnel extra funds to states where he or the GOP need a boost in popularity.

And Bush continually must pick what is wrong for the country just to petulantly show that he is "the decider."

Mystery solved.

Move along.

>"Every man must decide whether he will walk in the creative light of altruism
or the darkness of destructive selfishness. This is the judgment."

Darkness is way ahead, it's champions are in control... and it's in the late innings of the game for mankind. Other news at 11.

Posted by: JM on August 3, 2007 at 9:57 AM:
And Lyndon Johnson bugged the RNC in 1964? He had his men break into their offices? He had the CIA, FBI, IRS and Defense intelligence agencies involved in a cover-up?
Can you provide a valid source for any of this? Because it's all news to the historical profession, believe me.

Who needs a source when it's so easy to just "make up" the "facts" as needed?

Your boys want to create a giant government subsidy program. Feed the sick sparrows by feeding oats to the horses. The corporate horses shit and the sparrows eat the leftovers.
Posted by: corpus juris on August 3, 2007 at 9:26 AM

That analogy works on so many levels nowadays. This is the neoconservative corporatist approach to all problems.

OT: Appeals Court Rules FBI Violated Constitution During Jefferson Raid

Once again, we find Gonzales and the administration on the wrong side of the Constitution, hypocritically claiming absolute and unlimited privilege for the Executive, but absolutely no privilege of any kind for the Congress and no check of executive power by the Congress, but absolute authority to impose any type of check imaginable on Congress, including physically invading congressional offices to obtain desired documents.

One need not wonder what hypocritical wingers would say if Congress sent the Sergeant at Arms to take Rove's e-mails and other documents by force in response to the White House's refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas or, more analogously, even before such subpoenas were even issued.

bush's opposition is not really about "socialized medicine" at all. that phrase is just the public rhetoric used to justify opposing the schip legislation. making the "socialized medicine" argument about an INCREASE in a ten-year old program is clearly designed deceit.

i suspect that the real reason bush opposes increasing the size of the program is that that increase would be paid for by raising taxers on cigarettes.

and guess what corporations are founding members of today's RAT-C* party?

why yes, the tobacco companies.

rat-c = "republican authoritarian theocratic corporate",

or

the party formerly know as republican.

"rat-c" may be pronounced either

"rat see"

or, if you prefer the european,

"rot see".

Now I am not one to point out something positive about Orrin Hatch, but he did bring up anonymous' example as a reason to support the President's claim of executive privilege. Hatch said that the House leadership (in his opinion rightfully) howled against this action by the FBI, but now was being hypocritical about the president's claim.

I disagree Hatch on the similarity between the two claims of privilege or the two examples. The House's privelege is in the constitution, while the president's privilege is court-created law from the 1970's. Also, Jefferson's papers were clearly part of his office thus under the protection of the constitution's privilege, while the president is claiming a privilege about a subject he had nothing to do with.

But I thought it was only right that I point out that Hatch mentioned this.

OT: Boehner has denied revealing classified information, but two government officials privy to the details confirmed that his remarks concerned classified information.

Once again we see GOP members selectively leaking classified information and putting the country in greater danger in order to serve their partisan agenda.

GOP = GOPers Over [the] People

GOP = Government Over [the] People

GOP = Greed Over [the] People

GOP = Gestapo Over [the] People

GOP = George Over [the] People

GOP = George's Obsessive Prevarication

Never underestimate the ability of a few Republicans to screw huge numbers of people. Especially children. And puppies.

brian: Reagan and Bush Sr. both called for Nixon's resignation over trivial matters, such as Watergate (which was basically a repeat of what Lyndon Johnson did to the RNC in 1964).

Even assuming Johnson did what you without factual foundation say he did, why does that make Nixon's crimes trivial?

Does a murderer get to say his crimes are trivial because other murderers have killed and gotten away with it?

With logic like that, no wonder you adhere to the beliefs you do.

Bush's blunders, the Iraq War, plus tax dollar welfare for the strong (there's no way Bush can make the hard case for reducing government as a whole if he doesn't reduce it for the rich), are far more destructive than anything Nixon did[.]

Well, certainly we can agree that Bush is worse than Nixon, so we should be able to agree that Bush should be impeached.

(then again, it might just seem that way to a right-wing wing-nut like me).

You've certainly properly characterized yourself.

More honesty like the two preceding statements, please!

brian: [Bush] should be worrying about vetoing . . . $15 billion of foreign aid welfare for corrupt foreign governments.

Does that include aid to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Israel, Russia, and Iraq, which constitutes foreign aid and welfare for corrupt foreign governments, or are you just blowing smoke?

Noah: I disagree Hatch on the similarity between the two claims of privilege or the two examples.

There is also the fact that Congress didn't attempt to use self-help as both an excuse to physically invade executive offices and to paw through papers that were not necessarily relevant to their investigation, as the administration did, that Congress gave the executive the opportunity to voluntarily comply, and that Congress did not raise claims of privilege and then offer a compromise that clearly waives the claim while pretending not to in order to mislead the public about whether the White House is willing to cooperate or not, nor did Congress attempt to use privilege as leverage to set up a process intended to protect individuals testifying from the consequences of lying and thus encouraging them to do so.

"Of course, if everyone quits smoking because of higher taxes, the money saved by not having to treat un- or under-insured cancer and emphysema patients could probably be used to fund the SCHIP."

Actually, this isn't true. Smoking significantly reduces medical costs. It kills you so quickly and so young medically-speaking (the average lung cancer patient will get the disease in his/her mid-60s and die within 18 months of diagnosis with relatively cheap treatment) that is ends up saving a ton of money vis a vis a nonsmoker (who will live for 20 more years, many of which will be with costly medical problems in an expensive care facility, before dying of a more treatable -- and thus treated -- illness).

Big tobacco might have won their lawsuits against the states for medical costs if they had made this argument. Unfortunately, it wouldn't have been too productive in their lawsuits against the families of dead smokers.

The funding for this bill is asinine. A $10/per cigar tax will destroy the cigar industry in this country. It will have the same effect that the Luxury Tax did on the yachtbuilding industry. That one immediately shut down all the builders in South Florida. The rich never got hurt, only the workers who didn't have a job. All the shipbuilding went overseas and the used market for yachts got stronger in the interim.

What's the point of funding a good intentioned program if you are going to destroy the source of funding?

how many poor children will now die because an inefficient government has decided in it omnivorous wisdom has decided to expand its influence in their lives

Zero.

This has been another edition of smart-ass answers to stupid questions.

Anonymous at 1:19 AM: .... Most of the people benefitting from SCHIP are middle-class families who already have insurance.....
The people benefiting are children without insurance. The complainers are the usual gang of idiots. Their attack: it covers some who had insurance at one time, but not another despite their income. Any not wanting to pay the higher tax can quit, but eventually this program should be subsumed into a national health care system.

brian at 8:20 AM: I'm hardcore against socialist medicine....called for Nixon's resignation over trivial matters, such as Watergate....
The Republican nutroots never tire of whining about socialized this and socialized that all the time supporting socialized corporatism and socialized wealth.
No, LBJ did not break into the RNC and did not break into a doctor's office to try to get the goods on someone he regarded as a political enemy. Watergate was as serious a constitutional crisis as we had up to the current Bush power grab. It is not a trivial matter when the US has a rogue executive branch running rampant over citizens's rights.

With his vocal opposition to the expansion of the S-CHIP program to provide health care coverage for more of America's children, President Bush is returning to the same tried and true formula he first pioneered in Texas. That is, Bush initially fought the legislation on ideological grounds before caving to popular pressure and grudgingly accepting some version of the bill. Then, as with the Texas S-CHIP program, the Texas Patients Bill of Right and the 2003 Medicare prescription drug benefit, Bush claimed credit for it.

for the details, see:
"S-CHIP on Bush's Shoulder."

Can you provide a valid source for any of this? Because it's all news to the historical profession, believe me.

JM, as was made clear in the thread about Scott Thomas Beauchamp, brian is a deeply, deeply stupid person.

Sorry, I missed Brian's previous exploits.

The general conservative ignorance of this country's history is a sore point with me, obviously.

Do some of the winger's here remind you GH Bush back when he went into a store and was suprised at how much milk and bread cost.We got the same thing here.Al and his kind have no idea how much Health Ins. cost they get there's for free just like (wefare queens).So wingers I would like you to get a Ins. estimate for you and your family and then report back to us with your results,And do not post here again untill you do.

Is Iowa is one of the highest-performing states on the NAEP? Here's a quick review of the most recent (2005) fourth grade reading scores for Iowa and for its neighboring states. ("Scale scores," meaningless in themselves. NAEP only tests grades 4 and 8.)

Iowa: 221
Minnesota: 225
Missouri: 221
Wisconsin: 221
Illinois: 216
Nebraska: 221
South Dakota: 222

Ohio, Penn, NY, NJ: All 223
Montana, North Dakota: 225

For more data: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/

Screaming "socialized medicine" over and over just isn't going to do the trick this time

but that's the only arrow in their quiver. (cf Al, above)

Taking Al and Eggy awhile to come up with a Ins. policy they can afford.

More health care coverage for Americans -- woo hoo!

...but once people start smoking, about one-fourth of them become addicted

What?! Maybe if by "start smoking," we mean: "have a couple of cigarettes at a party every six months."

If, on the other hand, we mean: "consume cigarettes on a daily basis," that number is a lot closer to 100 percent.

I'm not arguing with your overall point, of course, but this number you gave really pricked up my ears.

Brian: By not taking on these issues, and "taking on" lower class kids instead, Bush has officially established himself as a man who seems to want to destroy the Republican Party. He's a good and God fearing man, but damn, he just doesn't know what he's doing. And the GOP can't be led by that guy.

I guess it won't hurt to let you in on the secret this late in his second term. Bush is a good and God-fearing Progressive, who is sacrificing his personal reputation to cripple the Republican party for generations to come. No one could systematically alienate his base so efficiently by accident. Bush knew that he couldn't directly battle the superwealthy and corporations who pay off Republican supporters, so he pretended to support them. Then he cleverly proceeded to cut away groups of ordinary voters from the Republican party, making it really hard to openly steal an election.

The war in Iraq is the centerpiece of his strategy. With his failures there he successfully turned approximately 70% of the voters against the Republican party. Even more than 70% will probably hate him for it in 2008, because he will make sure it continues until then.

Bungling the response to Katrina, proposing an incoherent plan to "fix" Social Security, appointing incompetent and dishonest cronies whenever possible, attempting to deny reality as discovered by scientists and carrying out illegal spying operations have played a part in stripping away any remaining credibility. Now, in the final two years of his two terms, he is getting serious. First he proposed an immigration bill that was totally unacceptable to any hard core supporters that remained in his camp. Now he's going to drive away any deadenders who are fond of children. I think that right before the election he will propose federal gun laws that prohibit anyone except law officers and soldiers from owning a gun.

I, for one, sympathize with this man, who will end up being the most reviled, friendless person in American. However I'm sure the billions of dollars he will inherit from his parents will go a long way toward consoling him. And it was certainly for a good cause.

Joe on August 3, 2007 at 11:34 AM:

Actually, this isn't true. Smoking significantly reduces medical costs.

That's how we can fix Medicare and Social Security...I'm gonna start Gramma on unfiltered Lucy Strikes today!

RENEWAL!! Whoo-hoo!

I'm off to have a few soylent green wafers, y'all. Have a good weekend.

i'm sure schip is a great idea, but if it's so groovy why are only tobacco smokers getting the tab?

you could make that argument (i wouldn't) if the money was going toward treatment of tobacco-related illness, but it's not. if it's a good idea, it should come from the general fund.

the idea seems to be that the poor schlubs who smoke are already so beaten down they won't squawk. it stinks.

your pal,
blake

I actually stopped a die-hard Faux Noise-spouting Republican in a discussion the other day by linking three events: the bridge collapse, Bush threatening to veto the SCHIPS legislation and the War on Terror.

You see, from a historical perspective, for any nation to successfully wage and win a war, that nation requires a healthy citizenry (to be foot soldiers, officers, support, etc.) and a healthy infrastructure (manufacturing, transportation, electrical grids, bridges, etc.).

Thus, anything (or anyone) that undermines the potential "peak" health of a nation's citizens and a nation's infrastructure actually aids and abets that nation's enemies, by weakening a nation, instead of strenghtening it.

Which is exactly what the "no new taxes, cut taxes" Grover Norquist branch of the Republican Party has done. A withered branch dripping poison that has sapped our nation's strength and actually endangered all of us (including them).

This is what stopped my Republican friend in his tracks.

In Bush's "eternal" War on Terror, our nation needs all the healthy citizens humanly possible as well as a healthy infrastructure.

Plus, our nation needs a highly-educated citizenry.

Anything (or anyone) that undermines our being in "peak" fighting condition therefore must be undermining our ability to wage and win Bush's "eternal" War on Terror.

The "Grover Norquist" Republicans have attacked our nation's tax-base. They've attacked everything "public," in an attempt to privatize everything, with them being the new "owners" of our democracy, something they have designated as their "ownership society."

Thus, they've attacked public health initiatives, public schools, public roads, public bridges, public libraries, our public military, our public Constitution, our public Bill of Rights...everything public...in an attempt to convert everything meant for the public good into their "privatized" nest egg.

Which has actually sabotaged our nation's ability to wage and win Bush's "eternal" War on Terror...or any war, for that matter...including the war Bush started in Iraq.

Crazy, eh?

I quit smoking after six years and after acquiring a two-pack-a-day habit. I quit by throwing away my cigarettes and my matches...
Posted by: stopit

I call bullshit on this little rant, all because of one word.

Nobody uses matches anymore!