 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / December 2006Fighting the terrorist within - opinion page
Fighting the terrorist within By Geoffrey M. Wahl November 17, 2006 Fighting cancer bears a striking resemblance to our fight against terrorism. Cancer strikes just as randomly and unpredictably, and it causes suffering, death and great personal loss to family, friends and loved ones left behind. Tragically, the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks killed more than 2,900 people on that fateful day. On any one day, cancer kills more than 1,500 people in the United States alone - about one death per minute, or more than 564,000 Americans each year. To put this into perspective, that's about half the entire population of San Diego, and more than the entire populations of Long Beach and Las Vegas. Tragedy is too soft a word to describe this kind of devastation. To address the war on terrorism, the nation has committed ever-increasing resources to security, surveillance and weaponry for the military. To win the war against the terrorist within known as cancer, wouldn't it be prudent to invest more of our resources to prevent cancer, and to develop effective detection methods and treatments for the 200 diseases we collectively call cancer? As Congress prepares the nation's budget for fiscal year 2007, it is proposing to provide increased resources to fight the war on terrorism. By contrast, our lawmakers plan to cut $40 million from the National Cancer Institute. This is the wrong time to reduce our commitment to the war on cancer. We are at a critical moment in the history of cancer research. This is a time of exciting research opportunities that hold promise for significant advances in the prevention and cure of cancer. Recent discoveries in science and technology have dramatically increased our understanding of the biological events that lead to cancer. This knowledge is ushering in a new era of "personalized medicine," allowing us to identify people at risk for cancer long before the disease has a chance to form and to prevent the disease before it starts. We are now developing "smart" drugs that target an individual's tumor cells. These new drugs limit collateral damage to normal cells, which is the primary source of the often-intolerable side effects of standard chemotherapy. The just released Annual Report to the Nation on Cancer, 1975-2003, reported that our risk of dying from cancer continued to drop, maintaining a trend that began in the early 1990s. Death rates have decreased for 11 of the 15 most common cancers, while cancer incidence rates remained stable. Overall, five-year cancer survival rates have also shown marked improvement, having increased from 50 percent to 66 percent (and to more than 75 percent for children) since 1971. >From an economic perspective, the federal investment in cancer research over the past 35 years amounted to about $69.3 billion, roughly $8.50 per American each year. This relatively modest sum spawned a vast new biotechnology industry that has contributed enormously to economic growth in this country. Today, there are nearly 4,000 biotechnology companies employing more than 200,000 people - in California alone, where the industry originated, there are more than 800 such companies. The growth in revenues from the biotechnology sector has been impressive, increasing from $8 billion in 1992 to more than $46 billion in 2004. Reduced federal budgets for cancer research translate into reduced funding for promising new research ideas and a lack of career opportunities for young scientists. Over the past seven years, the success rate on grant proposals to test new ideas has fallen from 32 percent to less than 10 percent. Further significant funding lapses would discourage and force current and future generations of young researchers to look elsewhere for career opportunities. The loss of an entire generation of researchers would be a devastating setback to this rapidly evolving field, and an unacceptable loss for everyone touched by cancer. With the passage of the National Cancer Act in 1971, President Nixon and the nation made historic commitment to wage a war against cancer. To finish that war, we need to make funding for cancer research a national priority. Jonas Salk once said that a true measure of one's life is our legacy, and whether we will be judged by the future as "wise ancestors." For our generation, we should be asking ourselves how much it's worth to end the fear from cancer - the terrorist within. Doing so would save millions of lives, reduce suffering, and save the nation billions of dollars in health care costs. Surely, our children and all future generations to come will judge this to be a worthy and wise legacy. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wahl, a professor at The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, California, is president of the American Association for Cancer Research. I strongly agree with the point of view in this article and made a similar point in an earlier posting. NCI's budget last year was $4,841,774,000. A drop of $40 million doesn't sound like a lot, you need to add in the losses due to inflation. With an inflation rate of 4.1%, the cut in constant dollars is $40 million + $198 million = $238 million. It's less than I feared, but still a very significant cut. A lot of NCI's expenses are fixed. You can't stop paying for heat, light, building maintenance, etc. You have to make the cuts in the variable parts of the budget, like staff and research grants. I expect the impact on research to be quite noticeable. I won't discuss the questions of whether more people will die from cancer than from terrorism, whether it is worthwhile cutting cancer research funds to fight terrorism, or whether the war in Iraq is really a war against terrorism or something else. We all have lived long enough to form our own pretty strong opinions about those issues. (What's that you say? I just did discuss them?) I'll just register my vote for more cancer research and fade quietly into the background :) Alan I have untreatable PC & would love to see a cure, but the real tragedy in the U.S. is the lack of attention to prevention. The lowest estimate I have seen is that 25% of all cancer is avoidable. Type-2 diabetes is avoidable. A great deal of heart disease is avoidable. If it were merely a case of people dying a year or so earlier, I could maybe understand the official indifference. But the cost of treating avoidable disease is immense & will only get worse as obesity becomes the norm & as boomers age. Cancer caused by smoking is still responsible for a huge number of deaths. OK, so this is largely due to older guys working their way through the system, & we know that the younger generation has much better habits. Yawn! I know an intelligent young woman who smoked through her pregnancies. You might get arrested for leaving a young child in a car, but it's OK to chain smoke on a long trip with the kids in the back. Not yet child abuse! And why is tobacco even tolerated if we are serious about lung cancer deaths? Alcohol is an issue too, but I love red wine too much to get upset by abuse. There are however, a number of supplements that can moderate its efffect on the liver. Why is there no sign of an education campaign? With food, we have a totally messed-up situation. I know of very young children who dictate what they eat for breakfast. TV ads? You can't target kids in Camel ads, but sugar cereals are still OK. Lunch choices at school are dismal. There are no health warnings in fast food places. Yes, you can't stop people making bad choices, but why not place a tax on bad food, to be used for research & health care. A penny spent on education might yield thousands of dollars in health-care savings. -Patrick > I have untreatable PC & would love to see a cure, but the real tragedy > in the U.S. is the lack of attention to prevention. I've seen no way to prevent PC. I.e., no habits I've seen predict it. I.P. > Fighting the terrorist within > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > causes suffering, death and great personal loss to family, friends and > loved ones left behind. I like the analogy as far as both striking w/out warning. If anything, ca is worse because it lasts longer than 9/11 lasted (for those who didn't lose loved ones). However, I don't think anybody realizes how many people were really traumatized by 9/11 -- what happened that day was an act of war and nobody expects to wake up one day and find they've been attacked by an enemy they never even heard of. A lot of people were in shock or just plain traumatized. I, on the other hand, was cool as a cucumber (In reality I am the last person to get 'excited") and volunteered at the makeshift morgue. My husband told me he still had nightmares and flashbacks about 9/11 a couple of years later. Maybe because he worked in the wtc when the first bombing happened some years back. 9/11 can't be compared to ca because it was SO out of the ordinary while ca is unexpected but it happens, unfortunately. 9/11 was a real war and it's hard for people who don't live in NYC to picture it. Recently, I walked by a firehouse near my house and my mother asked me why there were bouquets of flowers, notes, etc. in front of it. I looked closer and saw it was a memorial for the 11 firefighters from that unit who were killed. Another firehouse 1/2 mile away lost about 9 people. So we actually see the scars of this war. Altogether 350 firemen died on that day and I consider them soldiers in a war just the same as somebody who dons a uniform and goes to battle. The people who really fought this war were cops and fireman. Their ranks were decimart > Tragically, the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks killed more than 2,900 people > on that fateful day. On any one day, cancer kills more than 1,500 > people in the United States alone - about one death per minute, Tragedy is too soft a > word to describe this kind of devastation. What people don't know is that 9/11 ruined the NYC business district. A lot of businesses )especially financial cos.) went to NJ or elsewhere and one reason was that the downtown area spooked people. I myself used to go there a lot to shop and do other things but I don't do it anymore because I don't want to pass by the ruins. It still looks like a war zone.. > > Fighting the terrorist within > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > causes suffering, death and great personal loss to family, friends and > > loved ones left behind. The computer froze on me before I could finish that last msg. My point was that cancer is devastating but 9/11 was more like a war to those in the "zone' and it's sort of apples and oranges. However, I completely agree that they should spend a lot more on ca than on terrorism. The numbers are right > However, I completely agree that they should spend a lot more on ca > than on terrorism. The numbers are right. Only to those who don't comprehend the goal, scope, and capabilities of radical Islam. I.P. >> However, I completely agree that they should spend a lot more on ca >> than on terrorism. The numbers are right. > > Only to those who don't comprehend the goal, scope, and capabilities of radical Islam. Radical Islam scares the hell out of me. What do you say to people who believe that God commands them to kill people who are not of their own religion? I'm all for self-defense. We've got to protect ourselves. But how? Going to war against them in Iraq has probably radicalized 10 more people for every one radical who was killed. It certainly hasn't produced a liberal democracy in Iraq and it's hard to believe it will. Many years ago I heard a story by a woman who got in a cab in Israel and asked the cabbie what should be done about the Palestinian conflict. He answered, "We've got to beat them and beat them until they stop hating us." Alan >>> However, I completely agree that they should spend a lot more on ca >>> than on terrorism. The numbers are right. >> Only to those who don't comprehend the goal, scope, and capabilities of radical Islam. > Radical Islam scares the hell out of me. What do you say to > people who believe that God commands them to kill people > who are not of their own religion? "Keep it to yourself or Rest In Peace." > I'm all for self-defense. We've got to protect ourselves. But > how? > Going to war against them in Iraq has probably radicalized > 10 more people for every one radical who was killed. It > certainly hasn't produced a liberal democracy in Iraq and it's > hard to believe it will. I wasn't going to respond, Alan, because I promised to tread lightly on politics and this forum isn't the place for any more than a few sentences on this. Oh, the hell it's not. When someone as intelligent, studious, outspoken, and personally involved in 9/11 as Leah thinks terrorism is hopeless and/or less threatening than cancer and most of Europe has apparently forgotten NAZI Germany, I'm beginning to think no venue is inappropriate for the sake of our future. So here goes. We'll never win this millennium-old war radical Islam has globalized in recent decades and has openly and formally declared against the U.S. and the world's non-Muslims. The best we can do is win as many of the battles as we can (including Iraq and Afghanistan), hope that not too many of our friends live near large U.S. concentrations of people, try to minimize the western carnage during our lifetimes, and be DAMNED glad we don't have grandkids unwilling to convert to hard core Islam. Oh, that's right; some people do. If I were among then, I'd be FURIOUS at any of my friends who rail and vote against the only political party, national leaders, and nations willing to actually fight back against a threat exceeding that of Adolf Hitler. I suspect Europe is already a lost cause. The Muslim population is nearing critical voting mass already in some countries there, some of which lack the will and/or comprehension to fight back, partly because their media is even more left-leaning than ours. Radical recruitment has MANY facets, including: 1. It's existed for decades, especially in the horrifying madrassas throughout the Middle East and now in the western world. 2. What might the military call the radical Islam recruits flooding into Iraq (thanks to Iran)? Ducks in a shooting gallery. 3. OK, these ducks shoot back, but, hey, better there than here. 4. It's pissing off a lot of good Arabs, who may someday stop being part of the problem, rebel, and actually help suppress terrorism. 5. The two major battles thus far, Afghanistan and Iraq, are: a) miring and decimating ORGANIZED terrorism, the guys most capable of large-scale strikes against the U.S. (our side has thwarted hundreds of significant terrorist attacks), b) keeping the war "over there", and c) bringing Islamofascism to the public eye (except to those stuck on stupid by media bias, inattention, and a few America-hating and/or clueless celebrities). 6. We're seeing the tip of an iceberg; wait 'til today's madrassas children age another 20 years and attain the global reach just beginning to mature. Some things we can all do are: 1) Quit worrying about relatively minor distractions like gay marriage, abortion, the war on Christmas, minimum wage, education budget increases, Bush's Texas accent, and national health care. (Probably the second largest issue is taxes; the Democrats want to raise them to pander to ignorant voters even though the Dems KNOW higher taxes choke the economy.) Instead, vote (and hound our congressmen) based on one platform plank: defense against radical Islam. Then maybe we'll actually have TIME to resolve those lesser issues long before radical Islam dictates their resolutions to our grandkids. 2. Actually EDUCATE ourselves about the threat. Half my country and apparently 3/4 of the rest of the non-Muslim world have their heads up their a.ses, as indicated by their votes and the disproved rhetoric they sprout. Spend hours less per week gawking at sports, celebrities, and Greta's latest tabloid TV and hours more on studying global facts, and do our best to develop that priority in our descendants. (E.g., how many U.S. citizens know that Hamas has even more terrorist cells in the U.S. than does Al Qaeda, or that one of the mullahs raising hell about being kicked off that airliner recently has close ties to Hamas and OBL? Geez ... millions still think Bush went AWOL from the Guard.) 3. Risk offending people if that's what it takes to wake them up. 4. Suck it up, realize that freedom is not free, and get the hell out of the way of those willing to do the ONE thing the Arab world comprehends: stand up and fight back. I doubt many free world men-on-the-street even comprehend the shock to radical Islam that I believe America's response to 9/11 represents after decades of punching-bag U.S. presidents. 5. DEMAND your communities, governments, schools, courts, and bleeding heart organizations eradicate the devastating concept of Political Correctness in time to protect our children and grandchildren from a threat becoming larger than the Soviet Evil Empire ever was. 6. Fight the goddamned anti-American, self-avowed-communist (read their charter and examine their actions) ACLU. They have done even more than Nancy Pelosi -- so far -- to oppose every legal, logical and critical anti-terrorist measure our government has tried. 7. Demand the Congress and the administration take every conceivable step possible to keep WMDs out of terrorist hands, including Iran's. 8. Get in the face of all these idiots, from the incoming Speaker of the House to the man on the streets of Nageezi, New Mexico, who want to kneecap our military and decimate our intelligence agencies AGAIN, and stand up to the ignorant people who say our soldiers are brainwashed or simply stupid. 9. Get your grandkids out of radicalized schools and into schools -- if you can find one -- that teach both sides of the issues without blatant bias. Quitcherbellyachin', folks; this IS the short version, and at least I added "OT" to the topic line. Jeez, OJ SIMPSON stirs up more outrage than radical Islam does! WAKE UP, or your grandkids will suffer far worse and/or far earlier in life than most of you. Am I totally wrong? I hope so, but after paying close attention to this stuff as presented from both sides of the political fence for hours a day for years, after decades of awareness of Middle Eastern fanaticism, and having been associated with the individuals who ran the U.S. nuclear weapons anti-proliferation program years ago, I doubt it. This is some serious $#!+. I.P. Hello all, > >>> However, I completely agree that they should spend a lot more on ca > >>> than on terrorism. The numbers are right. > > >> Only to those who don't comprehend the goal, scope, and capabilities of radical Islam. There is money for both, actually. The battle against terrorism will be fought with brains not brawn, IMO. "Brains" as in good strategy, intelligence, diplomacy and a sound immigration policy, for starters. On the other hand, the war against cancer can be won by giving lots of money to the brightest people to enable them to do more research. Like I said, we need a "Manhattan Project" against ca. > > Going to war against them in Iraq has probably radicalized > > 10 more people for every one radical who was killed. It > > certainly hasn't produced a liberal democracy in Iraq and it's > > hard to believe it will. The problem here is that the "managers" of this war did not plan it right but unfortunately, it is the junior workers, many of them teenagers, who are coming home in coffins. Things might have been different if the managers had hit the books and studied a little bit about Iraqi and Middle Eastern culture. Then they might have realized that what we want is not necessarily what they want. > Oh, the hell it's not. When someone as intelligent, studious, outspoken, > and personally involved in 9/11 as Leah thinks terrorism is hopeless > and/or less threatening than cancer and most of Europe has apparently > forgotten NAZI Germany, I'm beginning to think no venue is inappropriate > for the sake of our future. So here goes. Thank you for the nice words. They are a little too generous but I needed the boost. However, after you read this message you will be convinced no doubt that I am ignorant and dumb as an ox, among other things. I think the war against terrorism will be won with intelligence, in both senses of the word, not money. So there should be plenty left over for the war against ca, which can benefit from tons of money. Richard Nixon declared war against ca in 1971 and don't you think it's a good idea to finish one war before you start another. I would willingly sacrifice myself to a dirty bomb if the war against cancer could be won. That would be a nice legacy to leave to out descendants. But like I said, one cause is not competing with the other. Each needs different resources to succeed. And as far as responsibility for fighting cancer, the gov't is responsible for public health and would take action, for example, if there were a flu epidemic. Well, this ca epidemic, which kills half-a-million Americans a year, has been around much longer and it's about time for it to be put down so your children will read about it only in the archives of medical history. As far as Nazi Germany, no, I have not forgotten it at all, it is very close to home. But like they say, the generals are always fighting the last war. I am going to quote from an article by the most promising person to enter politics in ages, VA senator-elect Jim Webb. He is a scholar, writer, patriot and first thing, a warrior. It is in his blood. He is a highly decorated Vietnam veteran as well as very smart man and a creative thinker. Now this is what he wrote in 2002 and he was amazingly prescient: (the agitator.com/archives/027210.php). As a soldier in the war on communism I think thesee words should have meaning for you, IP: "America's best mililtary leaders know that they are accountable to history not only for how they fight wars, but also for how they prevent them. The greatest military victory of our time --- bringing an expansionist Soviet Union in front from the cold while averting a nuclear holocaust -- was accomplished not be an invasion but through decades of intense maneuvering and continuous operations." Sen. Webb should know. He was secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration. I think if anything, the war on terrorism is similar to the Cold War because it requires a lot of intelligence and diplomacy and to the Vietnam War in the sense that it has become a guerrilla war. I am also going to quote a little more from the article -- remember it was written 4 years ago --in which he predicted what would happen in Iraq. "...many with long experience with US national security issues remain unconvinced by the arguments for a unilateral invasion of Iraq. Unilateral wars designed to bring about regime change and a long-term occupation should be undertaken only when a nation's existence is clearly at stake. It is true that Saddam Hussein might try to assist int'l terrorist orgs in their desire to attack America. It is also true that if we invade and occupy without broad-based int'l support, others in the Muslim world might be encouraged to intensify the same sort of efforts. And it is crucial that our national leaders consider the impact of this proposed action on our long-term ability to deter aggression elsewhere." Now, wouldn't it have been nice if we had had that voice in the Senate in 2002? > Radical recruitment has MANY facets, including: > b) keeping the war "over there" Honestly, I wondered from the beginning how a head of state could say this Out Loud. In other words, we don't want war and devastation on our shores so we will bring it to yours. Every time I see a picture of the horror in Iraq I think, Bush was so right, I'm so glad the war is out there and not here.. Better them than us. Because we are the only superpower in the world we have a duty to set an example, to be a beacon, the city on a hill. But we are not doing this. Yes, we care about the soldiers who are dying in Iraq but very few of us consider the effect this war has had on the native population: "Last month, 3438 Iraqis were reported dead from violence and that is thought to be a vast undercount. 3438 Iraqis on a ratio basis is about 40,000 Americans dead a month." Not all who died are insurgents. In fact, a tiny few are. Many are women and children and men who are just going about their daily business. We will need to account to ourselves and to future generations for this carnage, to explain why this "collateral damage" was justified.. > > . > 2 Half my country and> apparently 3/4 of the rest of the non-Muslim world have their heads up> their a.ses, as indicated by their votes and the disproved rhetoric they > sprout. Spend hours less per week gawking at sports, celebrities, and > Greta's latest tabloid TV I will stop watching Greta van Susteren and all my favorite forensic shows if you will stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. > step possible to keep WMDs out of terrorist hands, including Iran's. While we have been busy fighting, China has forged strong ties with Iran because it needs oil and as matter of fact, China has been one of the closest allies of Iran over the last few years: the largest on-shore oil facility in Iran is now half-owned by the Chinese (a $200 billion facility). In Sen. Webb's opinion, "China was pursuing a strategy with the Muslim world designed to destabilize the US and improve it's access to oil. And it represents our greatest long-term challenge, both economically and militarily." > Am I totally wrong? I hope so, but after paying close attention to this > stuff as presented from both sides of the political fence for hours a > day for years, If you have been studying this issue from "both sides" of the political fence then I am on the moon. I think you have been stayed well..into you your own territory and you don't even know who your neighbors are, let alone what they think. You only think you know. I think the neighbors you are friendly with are Rush, O'Reilly, Drudge and maybe Ann Coulter. > I.P. Now, please don't write these long, passionate messages because I am exhuasted from responding. And i could have said much more.. Best to you. Leah > please don't write these long, passionate messages because I am > exhuasted from responding. Sorry, but I can't always sit idly by while intelligent people say important things I know or strongly believe to be dangerous to our nation or other cancer patients. If you were some unedjumicated doofus I wouldn't care what you said. > The problem is that the "managers" of this war did not plan it > right. The generals are always fighting the last war. Precisely why Rumsfeld was put in charge; he brilliantly planned, executed, and won two modern wars, relying heavily on spooks and technology instead of blunt force, deposing two Hitlerian-level regimes extremely efficiently. But as with a dog chasing a car, they/he didn't know what to do with the target after they caught it. For example, we totally underestimated the insurgency Iran would pour into the fray. > if the managers had hit the books and studied a little bit > about Iraqi and Middle Eastern culture. Then they might have > realized that what we want is not necessarily what they want. What the the guys we're fighting want to do --- have sworn to do in writing and in the media and have demonstrated every chance they get -- is kill or convert you and your family and every other non-Muslim on earth. And they're drilling that into the heads of ALL their children all day every day. Screw their culture! > Thank you for the nice words. They are a little too generous but I > needed the boost. They were carefully chosen. You've caught onto this PC stuff very impressively. > I think the war against terrorism will be won with intelligence, in > both senses of the word, not money. So there should be plenty left > over for the war against ca, which can benefit from tons of money. > > Richard Nixon declared war against ca in 1971 and don't you think it's > a good idea to finish one war before you start another. Sure, if given the opportunity. But radical Islam is here, now, and would have followed 9/11 up pretty quickly if we hadn't struck back. Given free reign, they'd kill far more than half a million Americans per year the minute their quest for viable, large-scale, deliverable WMD enables it. That's just a few well-placed bombs and cannisters of gas and/or germs, rendering cancer relatively moot. Iraq alone had enough of the latter to kill billions of people. But fortunately, we're raining huge buckets of rain on their free reign; as one example among hundreds, our special forces thwarted one large attack just days before it was to take out a California football stadium 2-3 years ago. > The greatest military victory of our time --- bringing an > expansionist Soviet Union in front from the cold while averting a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > because it requires a lot of intelligence and diplomacy and to the > Vietnam War in the sense that it has become a guerrilla war. I disagree totally. Russians love life; radical Islam revels in death. From that diametrically opposite value system come reams of crucial differences between the two threats. e.g., Russia feared the U.S., wanted to strike us only because they believed we wanted to strike them first, but didn't strike because they weren't willing to sacrifice their population to counterstrikes; radical Islam, OTOH, simply loathes all non-Muslims and doesn't give the slightest damn if killing or converting the world's non-Muslims costs them a few Arab nation populations. Sacrificing every Lebanon and/or Palestine citizen to eradicate Israel is a total win in their book. Diplomacy presumes rationality, which the Soviet Union had and radical Islam does not. > Quoting Webb: >> Unilateral wars designed to bring about regime change and a long-term [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Now, wouldn't it have been nice if we had had that voice in the Senate > in 2002? In 2002 we had very extensive international support for deposing Saddam, as powerfully urged by the Clinton administration going into 2000. We didn't yet realize that Saddam and China had bribed France, Germany, Russia, and others to fake their support and renege at the last moment. > Because we are the only superpower in the world we have a duty to set > an example, to be a beacon, the city on a hill. But we are not doing > this. Again, we disagree. Standing up to bullies sets a marvelous example in my book. Just as I confronted three suspected thieves alone in the dark one night because it's the right thing to do (and I had an upper hand), I am proud to be part of a nation that confronts international criminals ... selectively. > we care about the soldiers who are dying in Iraq but very > few of us consider the effect this war has had on the native > population: The Iraq war has already saved FAR more Iraqi lives than it cost. Saddam was killing Muslims at a far higher rate than this war has. > 3438 Iraqis were reported dead > Not all who died are insurgents. In fact, a tiny few are. > Many are women and children > We will need to account to ourselves and to future > generations for this carnage, to explain why this "collateral damage" > was justified.. Uh, it's not the west who's killing civilians; it's the insurgents, led by Iran. They're doing it for at least three reasons: 1. To persuade U.S. citizens and media to do the same damn thing they forced the administration to do in Viet Nam: admit defeat, turn tail, and run, at the cost of MILLIONS more civilian lives. 2. Killing their Muslim brethren is safer and easier than killing soldiers. 3. It's what Muslims and Arabs do and have BEEN doing for millenia. Who's killed more Muslims than anyone else in modern history? Saddam Hussein. > there should be plenty of money left over for the war against ca, > which can benefit from tons of money. 9/11 has already cost the U.S. three times the monetary cost of the Iraq war to date, and our DoD budget is a very small percentage of our GDP. Heck, even education gets more money than defense, despite the fact that it's been proved repeatedly that increased funding does not improve education. > I will stop watching Greta van Susteren and all my favorite forensic > shows if you will stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. > I think the neighbors you are friendly with are Rush, O'Reilly, Drudge > and maybe Ann Coulter. a. Now wait a minute; wasn't it you who said you have no TV? b. I haven't heard a word from Rush since back in the '90s. I try to rely on facts, not rhetoric and bombast. I've never heard or read a word from Drudge because I have no idea how reliable or neutral he is. Coulter is a hoot to read, and crams her books with referenced facts to back up her over-the-top rhetoric, but the latter turns off even half the RIGHT wing, I'd guess. I like Greta herself, but flat can't stomach tabloid TV. I could not give one whit about who murdered or kidnapped whom. And why would you worry that I might listen to O'Reilly, given his extremely tough, on-going, long-lasting criticism of the Bush administration on MANY of the BIGGEST issues? I.P. Dear IP: > > please don't write these long, passionate messages because I am > > exhuasted from responding. At least on topics that I have to do research on to know what I'm talking about. > Sorry, but I can't always sit idly by while intelligent people say > important things I know or strongly believe to be dangerous to our > nation or other cancer patients. Well, it's hard for me to sit idly by... I think I am just the most selfish person here, wanting immediate gratification for myself by curing my husb's ca, preventing me from getting it and screw the future. If you are really concerned about "our children and their children" you should get passionate about the environment, forex. Husb's favorite charities are Sierra Club, Save the Redwoods and stuff life that. If you were some unedjumicated doofus I > wouldn't care what you said. Well, what about you? > > The problem is that the "managers" of this war did not plan it > > right. The generals are always fighting the last war. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > know what to do with the target after they caught it. For example, we > totally underestimated the insurgency Iran would pour into the fray. Not that I know much about this. Rumsfeld was trying to "streamline" the military like it was some kind of corporation. It didn't work in this case. After the occupation they needed "boots on the ground" and he didn't provide them. Didn't think it was necessary. Taking the country and "winning the war" as you put it, was the easy part. Interestingly, the person I mentioned yesterday, Sen.-Elect Jim Webb, who was eearily prophetic about what would happen in Iraq, said the neocon planners went into this war wanting a "MacArthurian' regency in Baghdad" that would require a US presence there for maybe 40 yrs. > > Screw their culture! If they had studied their culture they might have been better equipped to fight the insurgency. > > Thank you for the nice words. They are a little too generous but I > > needed the boost. > > They were carefully chosen. You've caught onto this PC stuff very > impressively. Still learning. And I've made some mistakes which I intend to correct. > > I think the war against terrorism will be won with intelligence, in > > both senses of the word, not money. So there should be plenty left [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Sure, if given the opportunity. . That's just a few well-placed bombs and cannisters of gas > and/or germs, rendering cancer relatively moot. I have to say I it's not that I am not concerned or oblivious to this threat. I have wanted to buy some potassium iodide pills for the longest time. They are supposed to protect the thyroid from radiation. So if there's a dirty bomb . . . However, I have been too embarrassed to ask the pharmacist. > > The greatest military victory of our time --- bringing an > > expansionist Soviet Union in front from the cold while averting a > > nuclear holocaust -- was accomplished not be an invasion but through > > decades of intense maneuvering and continuous operations." (Sen. Webb). My comment:. > > I think if anything, the war on terrorism is similar to the Cold War > > because it requires a lot of intelligence and diplomacy and to the > > Vietnam War in the sense that it has become a guerrilla war. Ignore my opinion. Don't know enough about the subject. > I disagree totally. Russians love life; radical Islam revels in death. What about non-radical Muslims, the vast majority. > From that diametrically opposite value system come reams of crucial > differences between the two threats. e.g., Russia feared the U.S., [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > is a total win in their book. Diplomacy presumes rationality, which the > Soviet Union had and radical Islam does not. But maybe China and Russia are rational. > > Quoting Webb: > >> Unilateral wars designed to bring about regime change and a long-term [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > didn't yet realize that Saddam and China had bribed France, Germany, > Russia, and others to fake their support and renege at the last moment. About China, I was really upset reading about them wanting to "destabilize" us and their supporting the Muslims, as Webb said. Sen. McCain said the same thing last night on TV (O'reilly show, repeat). If so, China needs to be taught a lesson. .. . The truth is China and Europe need oil and they will get into bed with almost anybody. The message for us is stop the dependency on foreign oil. > > Because we are the only superpower in the world we have a duty to set > > an example, to be a beacon, the city on a hill. But we are not doing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I am proud to be part of a nation that confronts international criminals > ... selectively. Yes. You might say we "confronted" them but are not "containing" them. The difference is the thieves were attacking you presumably but Iraq didn't attack us. Would you have gone after the thieves if they were just eyeing you like they had some mischief in mind... > > > we care about the soldiers who are dying in Iraq but very > > few of us consider the effect this war has had on the native > > population: > > The Iraq war has already saved FAR more Iraqi lives than it cost. Saddam > was killing Muslims at a far higher rate than this war has. Apples and oranges. > > 3438 Iraqis were reported dead > > Not all who died are insurgents. In fact, a tiny few are. > > Many are women and children > > We will need to account to ourselves and to future > > generations for this carnage, to explain why this "collateral damage" > > was justified.. Yes. As I said the equivalent to the number of Iraqis dying violent deaths would be 40,000 Americans dying a month. We have destroyed any trace of law and order in their country. A lot of those dying, incidentally, are people helping the Americans. > Uh, it's not the west who's killing civilians; it's the insurgents, led > by Iran. They're doing it for at least three reasons: So go after Iran. > 1. To persuade U.S. citizens and media to do the same damn thing they > forced the administration to do in Viet Nam: admit defeat, turn tail, > and run, at the cost of MILLIONS more civilian lives. I was too young to understand the politics of Vietnam. However, I am not saying we should cut and run. It's just that they are not accomplishing anything. Also, as somebody said, when we left Vietnam they weren't coming after us. It is scary. > 2. Killing their Muslim brethren is safer and easier than killing soldiers. > 3. It's what Muslims and Arabs do and have BEEN doing for millenia. > Who's killed more Muslims than anyone else in modern history? Saddam > Hussein. And Christians have never killed anybody, including Muslims? Who have the Muslims and Arabs been killing for Millenia. I haven't heard about it. On the other hand, WW II cost 60 millions lives and the Muslims weren't involved. Add WW I dead to that...you will get a big number. > > there should be plenty of money left over for the war against ca, > > which can benefit from tons of money. > > 9/11 has already cost the U.S. three times the monetary cost of the Iraq > war to date, and our DoD budget is a very small percentage of our GDP. Then you agree with me, there should be plenty of money for ca. > > I will stop watching Greta van Susteren and all my favorite forensic > > shows if you will stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. > > I think the neighbors you are friendly with are Rush, O'Reilly, Drudge > > and maybe Ann Coulter. Well, you sound like you're channeling Rush. > a. Now wait a minute; wasn't it you who said you have no TV? No. That was Mary. I really wish I didn't have a TV. I spend too much time watching the "murder channel" (Court TV) and I probably could qualify for a job as a med. examiner. (E.g., if a body smells of bitter almonds, it's probably cyanide). Yes, it's an ugly job but interesting. Husband says watching murder and mayhem all the time is not a good influence. True. However, you can learn stuff that can save your life. Forex, if somebody stops you on a deserted highway and says they're a cop and orders you into a car, don't go. And if your husband has a large insurance policy on you watch what you eat. >. I like Greta herself, but flat can't stomach > tabloid TV. I could not give one whit about who murdered or kidnapped > whom. Well, Greta IS tabloid TV. That's why I stopped liking her. She used to have a respectable job, being a legal commentator for court tv. Well, as mentioned above, we couldn't be any different. Murder and kidnapping are some of my favorite things. And why would you worry that I might listen to O'Reilly, given his > extremely tough, on-going, long-lasting criticism of the Bush > administration on MANY of the BIGGEST issues? I don't usually watch him but I saw a repeat of a show last night where he was totally a---kissing Bush. > I.P. Best to you, IP and no more politics. Leah > Now, please don't write these long, passionate messages because I am > exhuasted from responding. And i could have said much more.. > > Best to you. > > Leah Leah, there are right wingers and left wingers (and IP is in the former) in this forum. Neither is going to convince the other. My politics are very different from Steve Kramer's, IP's, Steve Jordan, and others here because my life experiences are so different. (I have lived among people of another country and culture for a good number of years, and I have worked with real poor people for an even longer time. This will cause one to come to very different conclusions from theirs.) I tried early on to engage in some of these kinds of discussions, but it was fruitless, stirring up anger in me against people who physically are in the same boat I am, and when focusing on our common disease can be very helpful. I have to bite my tongue when I read some of the stuff, but I know it would be fruitless to reply (I couldnt resist a few days ago, however, when I spoke to what I saw were historical distortions.) as well as counter-productive in this forum. We sometimes get in passionate enough arguments revolving around PCa issues. No need to fight other kinds of battles. (Now, if I can only follow my own advice....) Claude Dear Claude, > > Now, please don't write these long, passionate messages because I am > > exhuasted from responding. And i could have said much more.. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > poor people for an even longer time. This will cause one to come to very > different conclusions from theirs.) The truth is most people arent exclusively left-wing or right-wing. I know I'm not. I thought maybe you had lived in Ireland because you stuck up for it when somebody was critical about it being named the best place to live in a survey. I would like to get there myself someday soon. You know my husb said that GWB had never even been outside of this country before he became pres. I guess you could say he's not a Curious George. I tried early on to engage in some of > these kinds of discussions, but it was fruitless, stirring up anger in me > against people who physically are in the same boat I am, and when focusing > on our common disease can be very helpful. I agree with you 100% it's a waste of vital energy (and I don't know a whole lot about the subject anyway). The only reason I responded in that way was because IP specifically mentioned my name to make a point. And as you say, you don't care about somebody's politics when you're all in the same lifeboat. I have come to terms with the fact that some people here having very different opinions than I do, but surprisingly it doesn't evoke any animosity at all. I think the only type of political battle to get involved in is if it affects the subject at hand, like healthcare or the gov't's role in public health or whatever.... Also, this whole thread got started with a discussion of an article written by a cancer specialist and advocate called "The Terrorist Within", ca, and I am very interested in that subject and had plenty to say about it. > Claude Best to you. Leah > I thought maybe you had lived in Ireland because you stuck up for it > when somebody was critical about it being named the best place to live > in a survey. I would like to get there myself someday soon. You know > my husb said that GWB had never even been outside of this country > before he became pres. I guess you could say he's not a Curious > George. I lived in an African country. I stuck up for Ireland (and I have visited there...a delightful country and people), because the poster to whom I was responding was making assertions without considering the historical facts that led to the immigrations. I've said to my wife a number of times, one of my political fantasy wishes is that it would be a requirement for any national leader who will make decisions regarding our relationships with other nations that they would have to have on his/her resume a year spent abroad actually living *with* the common people of that country. That way they would see that other people love their countries as passionately as we love ours, and that there are different attitudes and ways of doing things that are as suitable for them as our ways are for us. Take care....and stay away from the malls today ;-) Claude > there are right wingers and left wingers (and IP is in the former) in > this forum. You might be surprised that I have no objection to gays, early-term abortion unless used routinely as a casual contraceptive measure, harsh INFORMED criticism of Bush and his administration, rational taxation, or deserved welfare, and that I am not religious. I just think national security trumps those concerns and that capitalism beats socialism. > I have lived among people of another country and culture for a good > number of years, and I have worked with real poor people for an even > longer time. This will cause one to come to very different > conclusions from theirs. I don't think the economic situations in Africa relate to my tenet that people within U.S. borders whose choices leave them poor have no right to DEMAND that productive members of society reward their self-inflicted plight by taking care of them. I.P. >> there are right wingers and left wingers (and IP is in the former) in >> this forum. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I.P. Once again, if you read my post carefully, you will see I said that I worked with poor people for a longer period than I lived abroad---these are the poor in this country. Those experiences cause me to feel differently about our poor than you do. > I worked with poor people for a longer period than I lived abroad--- > these are the poor in this country. Those experiences cause me to > feel differently about our poor than you do. I have not expressed any feelings about the poor, per se. My comments are expressly aimed at those whose CHOICES -- e.g., drugs, booze, refusing to get an education, spending and whelping beyond their means, refusing menial jobs in favor of welfare, living below sea level in hurricane zones in homes that cost the same as mine -- MADE them poor. Has your work led to any figures or percentages for that part of the indigent population? If they "can't find work", what are those 12M illegal aliens coming here for? 11.9M of them must find honest work, or they wouldn't be flooding in here. I.P. >> I worked with poor people for a longer period than I lived abroad--- > > these are the poor in this country. Those experiences cause me to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I.P. You certainly have expressed feelings about the poor. You rant against your stereotypes of them any time they are brought up. You never talk about "per se". Why don't you express yourself about the majority who are not like your stereotype? You want statistics? You give me statistics about all these people you are so angry at. Give me statistics also the people who want jobs but have no transportation to get there. Give me statistics also about the kids born into families where there are no fathers and have no male role models except people who were born into other types of families criticizing them for not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps....when they have never been given bootstraps. Give me statistics also about the inner city schools who pass kids on who can't read and the kids then find themselves at the end of their schooling with no literacy and no skills. Give me some statistics about Walmart which has just cut its full-time employees down to 40% of its workforce so they don't have to pay benefits. Give me some statistics about the mothers with sick babies who are turned down by doctors and have to stand in long lines at inner city emergency rooms. Give me statistics about how someone is supposed to support a family (and yes---buy health insurance) making minimum wage---even on two jobs. All right, you have gotten me mad, and I've tried to avoid this kind of reaction. But I'm speaking from my education and understanding of societal problems and flaws,my years of experience with the poor, and from my heart. You're going to come back with all your verbiage and all your self-delusions about being objective---and all the people you listen to and all the people dont listen to and all the hours and years and millenia you have spent *researching*when the reality is that your mind is made up, you don't take seriously people who disagree with you, and you are a deeply prejudiced person. You have no experience or understanding of what it's really like to be poor in our society today; and therefore you have no heart for these people. And this is the last thing I'm going to say about this. You're going to want the last word---as you always do---so go ahead and take it. As far as I am concerned something is so deeply ingrained in you that you are not going to be changed---this is a matter of experience, understanding, and compassion. With regard to poor people you have shown me you have not one of these three. > this is the last thing I'm going to say about this. You're going to > want the last word---as you always do---so go ahead and take it. Do you think it's fair to level paragraph after paragraph of completely baseless accusations at another and then insult him for responding? > "I.P. Freely" wrote. >> I have not expressed any feelings about the poor, per se. My comments are >> expressly aimed at those whose CHOICES -- e.g., drugs, booze, refusing to >> get an education, spending and whelping beyond their means, refusing >> menial jobs in favor of welfare, living below sea level in hurricane zones >> in homes that cost the same as mine -- MADE them poor. > You certainly have expressed feelings about the poor. You rant against your > stereotypes of them any time they are brought up. Claude, you're misreading virtually all my comments about THAT SPECIFIC SUBSET OF THE POOR WHO *C*H*O*O*S*E* TO BE POOR. I've made it clear over and over I am not talking about those who are poor through no fault of their own. Re-read any prior posts you object to. You will find they say the same thing I say above, which deliberately avoids both stereotyping and stereotypes. You simply are not reading what I have typed, and are thus making paragraphs of invalid comments and accusations. > Why don't you express yourself about the majority who are not like > your stereotype? Because they deserve our help, and are not the subject of my comments. Addressing a specific subset, as I have repeatedly done, is the OPPOSITE of stereotyping. > You give me statistics about all these people you are so angry at. Virtually 100% of them are wealthy. I'm not angry at even the people who DO choose to be poor, let alone the poor who got there through no fault of their own (I've made that distinction repeatedly, but you just won't read it). The people I'm angry at are the self-serving politicians who PROMOTE dependence on the dole to gain votes by forcing at threat of imprisonment those who earned it to give it to those who won't (AGAIN, not "CAN'T" . . . "WON'T"). IOW, many pols want to force those who earn money to give it to the government so it can use OUR money to BUY the votes of , promoting dependence not only on the government, but on THEIR PARTY. Other pols may do this out of sympathy for the poor, but . . . never mind; we're talking about POLITICIANS here. How many of them do you believe give a damn about the masses? If they valued our individual and national fiscal well-being over votes, they'd have instituted the Fair Tax and/or lowered taxes many years ago. > Give me statistics about the people who want jobs but have no > transportation to get there. 100% of the destitute Mexican nationals picking fruit in the U.S. and Canada, even those who crossed two borders illegally, found a way to get there and still send money home, collectively billions of dollars per year of it. And yet Joe Blow from Kokomo can't get across town? > Give me statistics also > about the kids born into families where there are no fathers 100% of mothers who have never been married chose to screw around. I chose not to do so while single because of STDs and after marriage because of vows. Unmarried women can damned well keep their knees together or pay the consequences. Their KIDS deserve our help, and we may CHOOSE to help the mothers, but the mothers have no legal or moral right to STEAL money at IRS gunpoint for their own use. > and have no > male role models except people who were born into other types of families > criticizing them for not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps....when > they have never been given bootstraps. Many of them deserve our help. Many others do not. I'M asking YOU for some guess at the relative percentage; I surely have no idea, have not implied any percentages, and have made no statements about those who were raised in a total vacuum. > Give me statistics also about the > inner city schools who pass kids on who can't read and the kids then find > themselves at the end of their schooling with no literacy and no skills. 100% of the kids who are mentally INCAPABLE of becoming literate deserve our help. Many of the rest -- the only ones I've addressed -- should have thought of that before they blew off school. > Give me some statistics about Walmart which has just cut its full-time > employees down to 40% of its workforce so they don't have to pay benefits. Companies owe compensation to their workforce. The fair market determines the value of that compensation. How it is allocated among health care, life insurance, cash, housing, all the food they can eat, merchandise discounts, education, etc. depends on the free market. If people want to earn more compensation than a single job will pay in the free market, they have MANY options, including the long list I posted several days ago which can save/make additional hundreds of thousands of dollars over a working lifetime even for most of the poor. > Give me some statistics about the mothers with sick babies > Give me statistics about how someone is supposed to support a family > (and yes---buy health insurance) making minimum wage---even on two jobs. Covered, and covered, in that long list, for the people I've addressed. Minimum wages were never intended to support individuals, let alone families. They were intended to help out until people got some kind of education and/or a better job. The minute minimum wages are increased to a full living level, they become full-fledged socialism and flush any fiscal incentive to grow right down the toilet. > You have no experience or understanding > you have no heart > you are not going to be changed And you are refusing to read the actual words I have typed, perhaps because this is understandably such an emotional issue for you. > this is a matter of experience, understanding, and compassion Certainly, and we admire yours. But the constitution does not grant the government the authority to take money at IRS gunpoint from those who EARN it and give it to that subset of the poor who REFUSE to earn it. I.P. IP, This is what happens when I respond in anger, and I should just stay out of these kinds of discussions. I don't really know you, and it is very unfair of me to make those judgements on you based on what you post here. I am sorry for that. You are right. This is an emotional issue for me. I have been associated with people who are poor, desparately in need of help, but none is available. I believe a civilized society should take care of its poor and provide constructive means for them to find ways out of their poverty. A good example of that is the welfare mother with three children and no husband (and its too late to go back and rail at her for her poor choices and totally cruel and useless to say that you made your bed, now your going to have to lie in it...it also involves her innocent children.) This whole situation is just going to be perpetuated through the next generation. A real answer would be to provide her with child care, transportation if she needs it, and a job that either pays more than her welfare allotment (including health insurance) or a subsidy to a lower pay that makes working clearly more financialy rewarding than not. To have a *good* public assistance program is going to cost more money in the short term (and that's a generation or two, at least) and therefore definitely higher taxes. I get very very angry at what I then perceive as people being callous about that, pointing at the flaws of the system, ranting about the cheaters, and therefore damning the majority of the impoverished to their continued misery.. I also know that choices have been made by people that have resulted in a lot of other innocent people suffering, frequently several generations later, and that people then don't have the full range of choices you and I had, choices that were clearer and easier to make and follow through on. I don't know your background, and I'm not going to detail the difficulties I had in mine. But I bet you were like I and had values instilled in you by family, male role models to follow, certainly inborn intelligence, opportunities that were there and achievable, people pointing out those opportunities, and then offering support or alternatives as you pursued them. You and I are not going to agree on this. You're right, some of the things you say set me off and I may not be willing to follow through trying to understand your arguments. You do focus on the negatives in this area. An anger and---to be perfectly honest---an attitude of self-righteousness is what comes through to me in your writings about poor people in our country. Having known so many of these people and the difficulties they face that I did not, I can only say that save for the grace of God and the accidents of my birth, I could be one of them. I don't want to go on with this anymore. We come at this in different ways from different experiences. I have been very good at staying out of responding to political comments in this forum. Yesterday I fell into the trap of doing so. And because of that I cast aspersions on you that were, because I don't know you, unfair. I apologize. And I don't want to discuss this anymore. From now on, PCa related comments only. Claude I must say > > this is the last thing I'm going to say about this. You're going to > > want the last word---as you always do---so go ahead and take it. [quoted text clipped - 117 lines] > > I.P. Hello Claude-- . > >> > > this is a matter of experience, understanding, and compassion . . . all of which you seem to have. I just wanted you to know I appreciated your eloquent posts on this subject . Too bad you have had to apologize for these altho I understand why you would. I just wanted to acknowledge what you said in a previous post about requiring every head of state to live in another country "among the common people." I don't know if I would go so far but I think your point is well-taken. Maybe that's why my husb. has a habit of bringing up this little factoid about GWB never having been out of the country prior to his becoming president. It presages his behavior as chief-exec. I mean it's not as if the Bushes couldn't afford the plane fare. Papa Bush may not have been to a supermarket ever but as a diplomat he had certainly been abroad, forex, as amb. to China. Where were the kids? I told my husb recently, "The world might be a diff. place today if GWB had taken a comparative religion course. . . or comparative anything." Why does it make me laugh to even think of this? It's true, a lot of book-learning is useless. But for myself, among the most valuable uses I have made of my time was reading the holy books of other religions. Besides being interesting, it really helps you understand what makes others tick, including in my case, George Bush. Not to mention that the major religions have a billion+ adherents. About the "poor." IMO the poor, "whelping women," socialists, communists, etc. are just useful as target practice for certain individuals who are angry about other things. There are definitely important societal issues which have been raised here, but that's almost beside the point. Targeting the poor et al. make sense because to most people, myself included, they are just an abstraction. I consider myself open-minded but it's not as if I have ever ventured anywhere near the inner-city ghettoes in the area where I live. And I don't intend to. So I let somebody else who has more knowledge of the subject give their opinion. Like you, for example. I have to say trying to garner sympathy for the "poor" is kind of useless. I think what will get people's attention is when the poor extends to include working- and middle-class families. For example, I read recently that it is becoming more common for accounting work to be shipped overseas and it occurred to me how some of the most practical careers, which people thought would provide them lifelong job security, are now being threatened. Plus, tell these 40- and 50-yrs. old accountants to go "reeducate" themselves. Anyway, against my better judgment I think I am going to post an article re above even tho I find discussing all this stuff highly toxic.. in fact, I had to get away for a couple of days just to breathe some "fresh" air. Best to you. Leah > Anyway, against my better judgment I am going to post an > article re above even tho I find discussing politics highly > toxic.. in fact, I had to get away for a couple of days just to breathe > some "fresh" air. I am going to submit this article not because I want to start a discussion about it but simply as a counterweight to some of the extreme things that have been written here in recent days. .. > > Best to you. Class Struggle American workers have a chance to be heard. BY JIM WEBB Wednesday, November 15, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST The most important--and unfortunately the least debated--issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars. They own most of our stocks, making the stock market an unreliable indicator of the economic health of working people. The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes. Incestuous corporate boards regularly approve compensation packages for chief executives and others that are out of logic's range. As this newspaper has reported, the average CEO of a sizeable corporation makes more than $10 million a year, while the minimum wage for workers amounts to about $10,000 a year, and has not been raised in nearly a decade. When I graduated from college in the 1960s, the average CEO made 20 times what the average worker made. Today, that CEO makes 400 times as much. In the age of globalization and outsourcing, and with a vast underground labor pool from illegal immigration, the average American worker is seeing a different life and a troubling future. Trickle-down economics didn't happen. Despite the vaunted all-time highs of the stock market, wages and salaries are at all-time lows as a percentage of the national wealth. At the same time, medical costs have risen 73% in the last six years alone. Half of that increase comes from wage-earners' pockets rather than from insurance, and 47 million Americans have no medical insurance at all. Manufacturing jobs are disappearing. Many earned pension programs have collapsed in the wake of corporate "reorganization." And workers' ability to negotiate their futures has been eviscerated by the twin threats of modern corporate America: If they complain too loudly, their jobs might either be outsourced overseas or given to illegal immigrants. This ever-widening divide is too often ignored or downplayed by its beneficiaries. A sense of entitlement has set in among elites, bordering on hubris. When I raised this issue with corporate leaders during the recent political campaign, I was met repeatedly with denials, and, from some, an overt lack of concern for those who are falling behind. A troubling arrogance is in the air among the nation's most fortunate. Some shrug off large-scale economic and social dislocations as the inevitable byproducts of the "rough road of capitalism." Others claim that it's the fault of the worker or the public education system, that the average American is simply not up to the international challenge, that our education system fails us, or that our workers have become spoiled by old notions of corporate paternalism. Still others have gone so far as to argue that these divisions are the natural results of a competitive society. Furthermore, an unspoken insinuation seems to be inundating our national debate: Certain immigrant groups have the "right genetics" and thus are natural entrants to the "overclass," while others, as well as those who come from stock that has been here for 200 years and have not made it to the top, simply don't possess the necessary attributes. Most Americans reject such notions. But the true challenge is for everyone to understand that the current economic divisions in society are harmful to our future. It should be the first order of business for the new Congress to begin addressing these divisions, and to work to bring true fairness back to economic life. Workers already understand this, as they see stagnant wages and disappearing jobs. America's elites need to understand this reality in terms of their own self-interest. A recent survey in the Economist warned that globalization was affecting the U.S. differently than other "First World" nations, and that white-collar jobs were in as much danger as the blue-collar positions which have thus far been ravaged by outsourcing and illegal immigration. That survey then warned that "unless a solution is found to sluggish real wages and rising inequality, there is a serious risk of a protectionist backlash" in America that would take us away from what they view to be the "biggest economic stimulus in world history." More troubling is this: If it remains unchecked, this bifurcation of opportunities and advantages along class lines has the potential to bring a period of political unrest. Up to now, most American workers have simply been worried about their job prospects. Once they understand that there are (and were) clear alternatives to the policies that have dislocated careers and altered futures, they will demand more accountability from the leaders who have failed to protect their interests. The "Wal-Marting" of cheap consumer products brought in from places like China, and the easy money from low-interest home mortgage refinancing, have softened the blows in recent years. But the balance point is tipping in both cases, away from the consumer and away from our national interest. The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and divide the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the deterioration of their way of life. Working Americans have been repeatedly seduced at the polls by emotional issues such as the predictable mantra of "God, guns, gays, abortion and the flag" while their way of life shifted ineluctably beneath their feet. But this election cycle showed an electorate that intends to hold government leaders accountable for allowing every American a fair opportunity to succeed. With this new Congress, and heading into an important presidential election in 2008, American workers have a chance to be heard in ways that have eluded them for more than a decade. Nothing is more important for the health of our society than to grant them the validity of their concerns. And our government leaders have no greater duty than to confront the growing unfairness in this age of globalization. Mr. Webb is the Democratic senator-elect from Virginia Note what the article says about "white-collar" jobs. It's not just "the poor." >> Anyway, against my better judgment I am going to post an >> article re above even tho I find discussing politics highly [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > BY JIM WEBB > Wednesday, November 15, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST Besides being patently fallacious, it has nothing to do with prostate cancer. Please apply the same standards to your sociological / government research as you do your prostate cancer research (which I find impressive) and, when you have a clear understanding of which you speak, feel free to shout it out on an appropriate newsgroup.  SignaturePSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05, 5/05, 10/05, 2/06, 6/06 PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 Casodex added daily 07/06 PSA <0.04 Non Illegitimi Carborundum Dear Steve, I really can't believe you are saying this with a straight face considering that somebody other than me has been posting messages about politics nonstop in the last week. And right here, in a cancer forum, not in alt. politics. He also initiated the discussion about same, not I. I was dragged into it when that person questioned how I could believe such dumb things. I responded by telling him I found it "exhausting"l to discuss politics, and I wrote in a subsequent post that I think talking about this is a "100% waste of time." Posting that article did what I would hoped it would: The other party agreed to stop discussing politics, at least for the moment. And it's not as if you yourself have not opined about this subject. I would really appreciate a response to the above. callalily wrote-- > > BY JIM WEBB > > Wednesday, November 15, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and, when you have a clear understanding of which you speak, feel free to > shout it out on an appropriate newsgroup. Jim Webb is a brilliant man with impeccable (right wing) credentials. So what he says is not "phallacious." Webb writes for both the NYT and WSJ (where this afticle came from), two papers which hate each other, and that shows that at least he is broadminded. Leah > So what he says is not "phallacious." Freudian slip, perhaps??? >> So what he says is not "phallacious." > > Freudian slip, perhaps??? Maybe, but at least it's more relevant to the forum, this thread, and her favorite topic. ;-) I.P. A joke for I.P.: One day a fourth-grade teacher asked the children what their fathers did for a living. All the typical answers came up: fireman, mechanic, businessman, salesman, doctor, lawyer, and so forth. However, little Justin was being uncharacteristically quiet, so when the teacher prodded him about his father, he replied, "My father's an exotic dancer in a gay cabaret. He takes off all his clothes in front of other men and they put money in his underwear. Sometimes, if the offer is really good, he will go home with some guy and stay with him all night for money." The teacher, badly shaken, hurriedly put the other children to work on some exercises. She then took little Justin aside and asked him, "Is that really true about your father?" "No," the boy said, "He works for the Republican National Committee and helped to get George W. Bush elected President, but I was too embarrassed to say that in front of the other kids." > A joke for I.P.: SNIP > "No," the boy said, "He works for the Republican National Committee and > helped to get George W. Bush elected President, but I was too embarrassed to > say that in front of the other kids." Let me guess: Justin lived in Seattle, or San Francisco, or maybe New York City. Yes, that's a good one. And you might be surprised how many times I've told the RNC by snail mail, e-mail, and telephone that until we secure the borders, slash the pork, squelch the PC nonsense, and shrink the government, they don't get another nickel from me. Looks now like others feel the same way. I.P. > I really can't believe you are saying this with a straight face > considering that somebody other than me has been posting messages about > politics nonstop in the last week. It was a simple requiest. A simple "no" would suffice. SignaturePSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05, 5/05, 10/05, 2/06, 6/06 PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 Casodex added daily 07/06 PSA <0.04 Non Illegitimi Carborundum > posting messages about politics ... right here, in a cancer forum, > not in alt. politics. He also initiated the discussion about same, > not I. I was dragged into it. Leah, we all have the entire thread at our fingertips, so ya has to give Truth just a LITTLE due diligence, lest you commit bilateral podiacide as you do here. > I found it "exhausting"l to discuss politics, and I wrote in a > subsequent post that I think talking about this is a "100% waste of > time." Isn't that sort of like the Energizer Bunny whining about the noise? > Posting that article did what I would hoped it would: The other party > agreed to stop discussing politics, at least for the moment. OH, yeah! THAT'll work! And what brilliant logic. Yet your VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH dives right back in, resuming your praise of an outright socialist as a right-winger -- the same senator who said he wanted to slug the president. I.P. I request a truce, Leah: you stop posting and promoting Webb's socialist, partisan, canned-talking-points, disproved crap as fact and I'll stop responding with pages of established facts and a few informed opinions when asked -- the latter usually identified as such and gleaned from thousands of hours listening and reading as national and global professionals debate this stuff from both sides. Webb's socialist dogma and the lies he supports it with insult Americans in general and especially the men and women who fought wars against socialism and its big brother, communism. > Class Struggle > American workers have a chance to be heard. > > BY JIM WEBB Thank you, Leah. This expose', from its title to its closing sentence, reveals a great deal about Mr. Webb. > America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over > the past 25 years. So freaking what? Not only does Bill Gates' success not harm me, it has dramatically enriched the lives of most of the free world, including mine. This may shock you, but there is not a total and limited amount of money to go around; the few hundred bucks we have each VOLUNTARILY put in Gates' pocket have benefited us and the world countless times over. Entrepreneurs and capitalism create jobs, grow the GDP, attract foreign money, and contribute to the tax base, benefiting hundreds, thousands . . . even billions of people in his case. Win/win/win. What's wrong with that? > few send their children to public schools Yet their taxes still fund those schools. > fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars. Send? SEND? Those loved ones are ADULTS, responsible for their own decisions. Many of our present ALL-VOLUNTEER military are independently wealthy; dozens of the men and women, officers and some enlisted people, I personally served with had Ph.D.s in such fields as laser physics, optics, and many engineering fields, and many were MDs; MANY people dodging terrorist RPGs so you won't have to have a huge variety of college degrees. I know many liberals can't comprehend this, but gthe brave people serve their country not only voluntarily but eagerly. Young, very handsome, athletic, married, brilliant Alan has a Ph.D. in laser physics, and lives just minutes from our premiere Star Wars laser laboratory, with hundreds of cushy high-paying jobs begging for him. The job he chooses instead, hands-down, at the expense of beaucoup bucks, great risk, and long working hours? The same job Dubya had: Air National Guard fighter pilot. I personally know several like him, and I'm just a drop in the bucket. > [The rich] most of our stocks, making the stock market an unreliable > indicator of the economic health of working people. Geez! SO FREAKING WHAT? That in no way stops you or me from owning the same damned stock, so that when Warren Buffet wins, so do we. In fact, their ownership is a good sign to me that I'm smart to be in the same boat. Anyone who puts his weekly movie popcorn 'n' soda pop money into an index fund for 40 years could buy a nice custom home on an acre with the results. > The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from > 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect the top 1% [with loopholes]. Total, utter, misleading bullshit. 1. The top earners' incomes mirror the health of the economy; he's > implying that a doubled economy is a BAD thing. 2. That same top 1% (incomes > $293k @ 2003) also pays 35% of all taxes! 3. The wealthiest 50% pays over 96% of the total tax revenues; the poor pay none. (Under the Fair Tax system, everyone, including lower wage earners, get fat checks from the government.) > just as [tax codes] protect corporate America, through a vast > system of loopholes. Every cent of corporate income tax is passed on to their customers via higher prices. And if this goon wants to raise taxes, as his party and its leaders have promised to do, there goes the economy; they know that government revenue goes UP when taxes are cut, but they shove that aside in favor of buying low income votes with everyone else's hard-earned money. P.T. Barnum had a word for people who buy this nonsense. > Incestuous corporate boards regularly approve compensation packages for > chief executives and others that are out of logic's range. While there are certainly some egregious cases of this, there are MANY examples of CEOs being paid mere millions when their direct efforts made 10 or 100 or 1,000 times their pay and benefits. And when that happens, stock prices go up and almost everyone from Paul Allen to your mailman make money on it if they choose to. > the minimum wage for workers amounts to about $10,000 a year Google minimum wage and listen to minimum wage debates. Even in just the thousands of AUTHORITATIVE pages and debates (ignore the partisan sources) you'll see its primary beneficiaries are the politicians and parties who raise it. One of the least and last beneficiaries are the poor. > the average American worker is seeing a troubling future. Total, utter bullshit. By virtually EVERY measure, the economy, from stocks to home ownership to unemployment, is BOOMING. Webb is spouting the same partisan, criminally misleading, sucker-baiting, alarmist BS Pelosi and Kucinovich and Kerry shove down gullible throats every day. My god, but it SCARES me that someone as studied as Leah seems to be actually buys this classic socialist rhetoric. > The politics of the Karl Rove era ... Beat the hell out of those of Karl Marx, slimebag. > 47 million Americans have no medical insurance at all. I, uh, think we covered that weeks ago. > Manufacturing jobs are disappearing And being replaced by more numerous and environmentally cleaner jobs. Google the benefits of outsourcing and WISE UP. > wages and salaries are at all-time lows as a percentage > of the national wealth. Or, restated, national wealth is booming. How's that a BAD thing? > Many earned pension programs have collapsed Which led to 401ks, IRAs, and other far safer, higher-returning, and more portable substitutes for corporate pensions, all of which increase our control over our retirement funds yet provide certain safeguards. Not maxing them out to get *F*R*E*E* matching funds from their employers is one of the dumbest choices many people make. The Roth IRA is still the best investment one can make, hands down. Just the cost of cigarettes, invested instead of smoked, invested in an IRA over a 40 year career, produces $800,000 in an average stock market . . . AFTER taxes . . . AFTER inflation. On a national scale, smoking cessation would save $160B in the health costs Webb whines about. > If they complain too loudly, their > jobs might either be outsourced overseas or given to illegal > immigrants. Yet the left still favors open borders. Reckon that's to gain votes and power? > workers will demand more accountability from the leaders who have > failed to protect their interests. It's neither the government's responsibility to provide jobs nor its right to force corporations to do so ... at least not this side of communism. > This ever-widening divide is too often ignored or downplayed by its > beneficiaries . . . industry displays an overt lack of concern for > those who are falling behind Name one person or group which benefits or suffers from this "divide"? Wealth-envy is a hallmark of those hawking socialism, not an actual threat or benefit to anyone but pols who use it to scare the gullible into voting for them. We make what we make, Gates makes what he makes, and the gap is just a meaningless number. > Others claim our education system fails us Oh, and it DOESN'T? Then why is it ranked 18th out of 24 nations despite our huge and ever-increasing funds? Jeez, we spend more public funds on education than we do on national defense, despite repeated hard proof that additional funding does not improve education. > A sense of entitlement has set in among elites And among welfare junkies and politicians. > the current economic divisions in society are harmful to our future. Back it up with facts, Webb, you damned socialist. > It should be the first order of business for > the new Congress to begin addressing these divisions, and to work to > bring true fairness back to economic life. This man is dangerous, plain and simple. The "Fairness" card is another hallmark of socialists. He may as well endorse the (paraphrased) statement from another senator that "Americans have too many freedoms. We must work together to curtail them". > Workers see stagnant wages and disappearing jobs. So why is unemployment at record lows, with involuntary unemployment virtually zero, you sack of lies? > hold government leaders accountable for allowing every American a > fair opportunity to succeed. No other nation in the history of the planet has ever even APPROACHED the level of opportunity present every day to virtually every person legally or illegally in this nation. Leah, I am disgusted that you would post this man's America-hating, partisan, lying, insulting (to anyone who reads any facts), alarmist, dangerous CRAP in this forum. Opinions are one thing, but a SENATOR portraying provable BS as fact should be a crime, and you're aiding and abetting it. He'll fit right in with Pelosi -- and anyone who considers that a cheap, undeserved shot has not been paying any attention to her over the past several years. I.P. Thank you, Leah, for your kind words and taking the time to respond. Adhering to my pledge to not comment on anything that is not PCa related, I'll have to let it go at that. Take care, and best wishes. Claude > Hello Claude-- > . [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Leah > Hello Claude-- > . [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > subject . Too bad you have had to apologize for these altho I > understand why you would. His only apology, due or provided, was for the unfounded personal accusations, not for his eloquently expressed feelings about the poor. He accomplished that very well > "The world might be a diff. place today if GWB > had taken a comparative religion course. Leah, Islam has been at very bloody war among themselves and with others since WAY back before the years had four digits. Bush, Blair, Israel, the Crusades, et.al. are simply examples of powers that stood up to the bully side of Islam. What do we care what god people invoke when they vow to kill us? Google up the movie "Obsession" and wake up and smell what's going on. > IMO the poor . . . target practice for certain individuals who are > angry about other things . . . beside the point. Targeting the poor > . . . just an abstraction. And that illustrates in bold print the difference between touchy-feely "thinking" and pragmatic analysis. The former renders the latter impossible on both personal and global levels. > So I let somebody else who has more knowledge of the > subject give their opinion. Like [Claude], for example. Which is exactly why I asked Claude for any wag on the percentage of poor people who got there due to their own choices vs by no fault of their own. > tell these 40- and 50-yrs. old accountants to go "reeducate" themselves. Most career fields come and go, sometimes to extremes. Are you suggesting YOU are obligated to pay the rent for the guy who can't find exactly the job he wants exactly where he wants it when he wants it? > I find discussing all this stuff highly toxic. In the abstract, yes. But as data and opinions for voting fodder, it's crucial to the big picture. Welfare, socialized medicine (the only PC link here), and global jihad issues will be major drivers in the next election, and the latter may rip our children's lives inside out. I.P. >> Give me statistics also >> about the kids born into families where there are no fathers > >10 |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message