PDA

View Full Version : Why the 'O'-ministration will implode in weeks....America's only hope



notmYJ
09-01-2009, 12:10 PM
http://townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2009/08/30/why_the_o-ministration_will_implode_in_weeks?page=full&comments=true

by Kevin McCullough

Never has an administration who had more firepower at their disposal, been set to so totally fail in the next six to eight weeks. It is nearly a foregone conclusion. It is nearly unavoidable. And it defies all logic given the sizable majority the administration has in both houses of Congress.

Since I was the first pundit to predict Obama's presidency (Dec 2006) it behooves me to tell you the course I believe the next few weeks will take and effectively halt the radical transformation that the left appeared unstoppable with only months ago.

1. Health Care's long and painful death.

Barring the existing possibility that the Democrats cram a reform bill down the throats of actively protesting Americans through an ultra-partisan process that would shut out conservatives and Republicans from even being allowed to contribute to the discussion, health care reform is dead. It actually died a good while back when the President decided to pivot and create a new issue that no one had been discussing--health insurance reform. The American people will want to know why we should spend $4 billion to cover everyone in America "efficiently," when we already do so with inefficiencies like people using the emergency room as their general practitioner for $2.5 billion. Deep thinkers on the issue want to know why the President hasn't entertained one item of tort reform--protecting his friends, the trial lawyers--yet is willing to claim that doctors are eager to lop off feet, tonsils, and foreskin just to make a buck.

2. Cap & Trade will be the largest tax increase in American history.

With the 2010 election cycle just around the corner, campaign ads are not far off from being drafted. With Cap & Trade still sitting in legislative limbo, with the President's own advisor--Warren Buffet--now opposing it openly on media, with the 9.12 project in the works in which the largest gathering of anti-tax Americans from the left, right, and middle will be coming to Washington DC on September 12, and with blue dogs getting absolutely hammered in their home districts supporting it, the chance of single-party ram through victory on the matter is not wise. Cap & Trade, if passed, will contribute to unemployment, Wall Street stop and starts, and ultimately reduced treasury revenues. It would serve as the single largest tax increase on the average American in all of American history. Even President Obama admitted as much, predicting that electric bill prices, in his words, would, "skyrocket." Those that have looked at the specifics tell us that the average utility bill in America will go from $167 to $307 per month, per family.

3. Unemployment to remain high.

Now several Washington organizations from left and right, and one of note consisting of both--the Congressional Budget Office, predicts that unemployment will not shrink from the predicted "Obama high" of 8%. Instead, nearly without fail, economists are predicting unemployment at or over 10% for up to the next 24 months. That is nearly 250% the increase in unemployment under Bush for nearly the duration of his two-term presidency. If people were working, higher taxes and possible new health care entitlements could be considered, but without them working it is political suicide for Democrats to even think of it.

4. Obama's integrity tarnished in August.

Not a great deal has been made of the whoppers that the President has been spewing while the Federal Government has been in recess, but it is worth noting that many more people than I had previously realized have notice the President "exaggerating" badly in his talks on health care. For instance confusing he actual $500 physicians get to amputate a foot as opposed to the $50,000 that he claimed they got. He has shown an utter disregard for the reputation of those he talks about, the "facts" he uses to make his argument, and is highly overly optimistic about the results of his policies. Long story short, at the beginning of the summer Americans mostly trusted him, his passion index was at +10, he heads into the fall at -14.

5. A $3 trillion dollar budget.

New spending for this and that sure added up. And that brings me to number 6.

6. A coming middle class tax hike.

They will hem and haw. There will be an official, and ever arrogant Robert Gibbs explanation from the White House Press room as to why they must to do this to be "good stewards" and to be a "responsible administration" that, "pays as it goes." But the truth is, in order to pay for everything they've promised and budgeted for, a tax is looming for small businesses and working families that President Obama promised would never come. And as an aside, he was going to break that promise all along. Because the minute the "Bush tax relief" runs out in 2010, middle class taxes would be going up in an "Obama administration." Hence fundamentally Obama's "not a single dime" pledge on the campaign trail was bollocks start to finish.

Of course the President, the Democrats, the left, and Congressional leadership could surprise me. They could show up in September and endorse the Coburn health care bill in the U.S. Senate and swipe the credit for it. They could show up next week and fight with all their might to not allow the tax rates to skyrocket in 2010. They could decide to scrap Cap & Trade and re-think the use of public money for true job-based economic stimulation.

But I'm not holding my breath, and I'd advise you against it as well.

They've awakened the American worker, the American small-business owner, and the American voter.

All three of which are now wondering aloud, "What on earth have we done?"

OverkillZJ
09-01-2009, 12:17 PM
I've been amazed by how many claim to "regret" their vote for him, or how "surprised" they are by his actions.

He's only done what he said he'd set out to do. People just don't think, don't listen, and don't reason.

ridgerunner97
09-01-2009, 12:55 PM
I agree Matt, i personally tried to sway some family members to not vote for him, but they kept hearing his change bullshit and fell for it. Now we gotta live with it, that's all there is to it. This storm will pass like others have before.

notmYJ
09-01-2009, 01:05 PM
I agree Matt, i personally tried to sway some family members to not vote for him, but they kept hearing his change bullshit and fell for it. Now we gotta live with it, that's all there is to it. This storm will pass like others have before.

No doubt the storm will pass, the question is will we be able to clean up the aftermath? If all of his radical ideas go through, it would take decades to recover if at all.

SirFuego
09-01-2009, 02:14 PM
While I think that about the only "memorable" thing about his presidency will be the election itself (unless WW3 or some major disaster affecting most of the US happens), I think it's going to take a lot longer than 6-8 weeks for the administration to truly "implode" (at least with respect to the media -- who, whether you agree with it or not, I would argue is who makes that "decision" when a presidency has tanked).

Based on my limited political background, history seems to dictate that things usually don't go well when a single party holds the power in the legislative and executive branches -- because the whole "checks and balances" is essentially upended since both branches tend to agree on most topics. Dissention between the branches forces some sort of middle of the road compromise that is often more beneficial than either "extreme" -- or if no one can reach a conclusion, it's rarely something the gov't should be deciding on anyways (counterpoint: the budget crisis in PA).

Pure socialism kills progress, while pure capitalism creates too much greed. The fact of the matter is that pure socialism and pure capitalism cannot work and the difficulty is in finding the "middle ground".

I don't think that gov't run healthcare (or a healthcare "pool" with a gov't funded option as has been proposed) is the answer, but I also think the "problems" with the current health care system could be aided by regulations on the hospitals, insurance companies, medical supply companies and pharmeceuticals -- to the point where competition still exists, but health care is affordable.

I personally think we need welfare, but at the same time it should be closer to "workfare" with heavy restrictions on any money given to you by the gov't -- instead of a free handout that increases every time you pop another kid out.

The bottom line is that neither extreme is ever the answer and disagreement is needed in a gov't for it to be effective.

beat1078
09-01-2009, 02:37 PM
No doubt the storm will pass, the question is will we be able to clean up the aftermath? If all of his radical ideas go through, it would take decades to recover if at all.

I would be more worried about where we are as a nation.

gonecheenin
09-01-2009, 04:24 PM
Sir Fuego for Prez! :003:


While I think that about the only "memorable" thing about his presidency will be the election itself (unless WW3 or some major disaster affecting most of the US happens), I think it's going to take a lot longer than 6-8 weeks for the administration to truly "implode" (at least with respect to the media -- who, whether you agree with it or not, I would argue is who makes that "decision" when a presidency has tanked).

Based on my limited political background, history seems to dictate that things usually don't go well when a single party holds the power in the legislative and executive branches -- because the whole "checks and balances" is essentially upended since both branches tend to agree on most topics. Dissention between the branches forces some sort of middle of the road compromise that is often more beneficial than either "extreme" -- or if no one can reach a conclusion, it's rarely something the gov't should be deciding on anyways (counterpoint: the budget crisis in PA).

Pure socialism kills progress, while pure capitalism creates too much greed. The fact of the matter is that pure socialism and pure capitalism cannot work and the difficulty is in finding the "middle ground".

I don't think that gov't run healthcare (or a healthcare "pool" with a gov't funded option as has been proposed) is the answer, but I also think the "problems" with the current health care system could be aided by regulations on the hospitals, insurance companies, medical supply companies and pharmeceuticals -- to the point where competition still exists, but health care is affordable.

I personally think we need welfare, but at the same time it should be closer to "workfare" with heavy restrictions on any money given to you by the gov't -- instead of a free handout that increases every time you pop another kid out.

The bottom line is that neither extreme is ever the answer and disagreement is needed in a gov't for it to be effective.

OverkillZJ
09-01-2009, 04:28 PM
Sir Fuego for Prez! :003:

Haha, he'd get my vote.

Christopher
09-01-2009, 10:50 PM
Many people are realizing just how radical this president is. I don't think anyone would listen during the election because of the usual dirt throwing parties constantly pit one side against another.

Now that one party is in power they are trying to ram everything they ever dreamed of through. And with the economy down and people suffering this is the crisis they need to get things done that would not normally be possible. No one has a job they are going to need healthcare...right??? "Never let a good crisis go to waste" (Rahm Emanuel)
We can't let the economy crash lets nationalize banks... and the auto industry and so on

In a way It may be a blessing because so many are waking up and now know what they had in this country is threatened and are ready to fight to keep it.

That I "hope" will be what causes this current administration and congress to fail.
And yes the USA will survive.

Greed is one of the things that has landed us where we are however capitalisim does not create greed anymore than me holding a paintbrush makes me an artist

Greed is in socialisim also as it establishes a ruling elite with absolute power and a lower class, as it was in the U.S.S.R.

greed is a flaw of mankind much like lying, stealing, fraud.
We have laws for that already

SirFuego
09-02-2009, 09:37 AM
Sir Fuego for Prez! :003:
I won't be eligible for the next election. However, I give it about 5 elections until some "no name" person becomes a viable presidential candidate (i.e. can actually compete with the two big parties) with a campaign primarily over the Internets.


Greed is one of the things that has landed us where we are however capitalisim does not create greed anymore than me holding a paintbrush makes me an artist

Greed is in socialisim also as it establishes a ruling elite with absolute power and a lower class, as it was in the U.S.S.R.
Very true, but I think you at least understood my point, so it's just coming down to semantics. Both fail because people want more, which screws over many people -- socialism greed is limited to a handful of people while capitalistic greed is strewn across many people.

--------------------

The fundamental "problem" is that healthcare has an inelastic demand -- meaning that the demand doesn't change much regardless of the price (in other words, peoeple get hurt and sick no matter what). Healthcare-related companies know this, so they can drive up prices. However, healthcare is also largely dependent on R&D, so "huge profits" are often reinvested in the company by some sort of R&D (not to get too far off topic, but this is one of the few industries where a ton of non-gov't money is actually invested in R&D). So stifling the huge profits may really not be a good idea since it will kill R&D.

IMO, the gov't shouldn't be "running" healthcare -- they should be regulating it. For example, force companies to comply to a EMR (electronic medical record) standard. Force them to provide a means by which it can be legally accessed 24/7. Yes, there is a one-time setup cost involved, but in the long run it's more efficient because the doctor's now have ALL the information at their fingertips when they need it. This leads to fewer "repeated" tests, fewer misdiagnoses, and faster diagnoses. On that note, the gov't could perhaps make it more difficult to sue for malpractice -- this would also drive down insurance costs for the doctors, thus making treatment cheaper.

Ironically, Obama fully supports a complete transition to EMR's. Why this topic has been completely ignored in the whole healthcare debate is beyond me, because it may solve a LOT more problems.

These regulations make the healthcare process more efficient -- driving down costs across the board, which means that prices can be lowered without a significant impact to profits that can be reinvested in R&D. I'm not going to say that this will solve everything, but it's a start that I think appeals to more people than throwing taxpayer money at a public option. This, of course, assumes that a major problem with healthcare is inefficiency. But Obama has been arguing that healthcare is inefficient, so it has to be true ;-)

Christopher
09-02-2009, 10:01 AM
(not to get too far off topic, but this is one of the few industries where a ton of non-gov't money is actually invested in R&D). So stifling the huge profits may really not be a good idea since it will kill R&D.

IMO, the gov't shouldn't be "running" healthcare -- they should be regulating it. For example, force companies to comply to a EMR (electronic medical record) standard. Force them to provide a means by which it can be legally accessed 24/7. Yes, there is a one-time setup cost involved, but in the long run it's more efficient because the doctor's now have ALL the information at their fingertips when they need it. This leads to fewer "repeated" tests, fewer misdiagnoses, and faster diagnoses. On that note, the gov't could perhaps make it more difficult to sue for malpractice -- this would also drive down insurance costs for the doctors, thus making treatment cheaper.


I like your ability to think.
Most people are against being Forced into something.
If anyone forces anything on me I will resist.
Make it an option maybe an emr person gets a slight discount.

If I want a second opinion I do not care if a test is repeated.

back on topic...
I love the country and its soverenty and what America has stood for since its beginning. Those currently running it seem to want to change it to something resembling cuba. I shall not let that happen. I do not belive most Americans want that either.

SirFuego
09-02-2009, 10:20 AM
Most people are against being Forced into something.
If anyone forces anything on me I will resist.
Make it an option maybe an emr person gets a slight discount.

Companies adhere to standards all the time, so this would be no different. Think of power outlets -- does Dell put up a resistance to the shape a power cable must be for their laptops? Of course not -- because going against the standard would kill business. Standards also reduce the workload for a company because they don't need to spend time coming up with their own solution. They just design their systems around it.

Healthcare companies not adhering to the EMR standard would be suicide as well. Why would an insurance company NOT want to have access to all medical records for a current/potential customer? Why would a hospital NOT want to have access to all medical records for a patient? Would you rather go to a hospital that you need to answer 100 questions about your background because they haven't tapped into this EMR infrastructure or one that has that information and doesn't need to ask the questions?


If I want a second opinion I do not care if a test is repeated.
I completely agree, but often times a test is repeated because the doctor does not have access to the previous test results. Nothing would be preventing you from getting the same test for a second opinion.

OverkillZJ
09-02-2009, 10:46 AM
Companies adhere to standards all the time, so this would be no different. Think of power outlets -- does Dell put up a resistance to the shape a power cable must be for their laptops? Of course not -- because going against the standard would kill business. Standards also reduce the workload for a company because they don't need to spend time coming up with their own solution. They just design their systems around it.

Healthcare companies not adhering to the EMR standard would be suicide as well. Why would an insurance company NOT want to have access to all medical records for a current/potential customer? Why would a hospital NOT want to have access to all medical records for a patient? Would you rather go to a hospital that you need to answer 100 questions about your background because they haven't tapped into this EMR infrastructure or one that has that information and doesn't need to ask the questions?


I completely agree, but often times a test is repeated because the doctor does not have access to the previous test results. Nothing would be preventing you from getting the same test for a second opinion.

I'm not sure how you went from the edison standard power plug to my medical records being in a governement database. I'm not sure how I feel about that, regardless of how much it may help.

Insurance keeping such records properly - great. Government, fawk no.

SirFuego
09-02-2009, 10:57 AM
I'm not sure how you went from the edison standard power plug to my medical records being in a governement database. I'm not sure how I feel about that, regardless of how much it may help.

Insurance keeping such records properly - great. Government, fawk no.

Where did I say that the government put the EMRs in a database (or even owned them)? I simply said that the company must provide 24/7 access to them.

Perhaps the most efficient way to do this is one or more private companies (certified by the gov't or some recognized agency) that these EMRs are reported to. The hospitals, insurance companies, etc, can then retrieve the records from these companies. Sounds sorta similar to the way credit is handled, huh? However, these companies can only report the raw data -- they would not be allowed to give you a "medical score" or any sort of treatment recommendations. The patient would be allowed to view their EMRs to ensure their medical history is up-to-date.

OverkillZJ
09-02-2009, 11:02 AM
Where did I say that the government put the EMRs in a database (or even owned them)? I simply said that the company must provide 24/7 access to them.



You didn't, I misread. Too many screens up, and I'm far too impatient to read what people type. It's much more efficient to jump to conclusions :overkill:

SirFuego
09-02-2009, 11:14 AM
Yeah the crux of my argument is for the gov't to set up and maintain an efficient infrastructure (with the help and input of private industry) then let private industry essentially implement that infrastructure.

Christopher
09-02-2009, 11:40 AM
I see some of your points SirFuego.

I fail to see the urgent need for a gov intervention.
The correction of the economy itself should render efficiency/cost savings measures.
Provided the gov does not artificially prop it up again.
In the real world you can not charge high prices for something people cannot afford.

I would think if the emr is that big a benefit and helps profit it will get done reguardless. We have a system people from other coutries come to for treatrments thus far without all the regulations


I like the idea of letting people save their own money from taxes for medical cost would have people shop for services.

SirFuego
09-02-2009, 12:04 PM
I fail to see the urgent need for a gov intervention.
I agree that it's not urgent. However, if something isn't dubbed as being urgent in the gov't nothing ever happens.


The correction of the economy itself should render efficiency/cost savings measures.
What in the current system is making you think that it will correct itself? Insurance companies don't want to offer any lower rates because it would attract more people -- which means they will have more medical claims and perhaps LOSE money. Hospitals, pharmeceuticals, etc don't want to lower their rates because of the inelastic demand for their products -- meaning that it's unlikely they will attract much business by lowering their prices.


Provided the gov does not artificially prop it up again.
If anything, they would take it down, with this low-cost public option. If the public option is "good enough" for most people, they will take it. My major fear in this is that the public option is going to be far cheaper than any insurance company can provide -- so insurance companies will collapse since they can't compete (even with efficiency overhauls in their processes). The companies themselves going under isn't really the problem -- the problem would be that it may end up that the public option is the ONLY option for a large majority of Americans, and the taxpayers are going to somehow foot this...



In the real world you can not charge high prices for something people cannot afford.
Sure you can if there is a "need" for it. It doesn't matter who pays you -- you just care that you get paid. That's the way this has always operated.



I would think if the emr is that big a benefit and helps profit it will get done reguardless.
It IS being done already, but it's still in its infancy. The problem even with hostpitals that have transitioned (or are in the process) is that there isn't a formal infrastructure set up for hospitals to have immediate access to records from other offices or hospitals. You would think that they would eventually work together to develop the standard since it's a win-win for everyone. However, unless some sort of agency or association is formed (sorta like IEEE) companies will claim that their solution is the best and nothing will ever get standardized.


I like the idea of letting people save their own money from taxes for medical cost would have people shop for services.
I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that they will have reduced taxes that they can use too "save up" for future medical costs? Or that X% of their tax money goes into a "medical fund" that is depleted when they need medical services?

Christopher
09-02-2009, 01:23 PM
I do not know how to do fancy muti quotes

The urgency argument is no excuse and I do question how fed gov involvment pans out constitutionaly.

price corrections/crashes will always come if the market is not interfered with. people in the industry will have to deal with less.

Are Insurance companies in california are forced to cover sex change operations? regulations such as that can inflate insurace costs for everyone else. I am sure there are other items they have to cover that raises the cost. In short I am not ready to demonize ins co's
gov has a habit of being part of the problem then blame someone else
(gasoline tax, sub prime mortgage etc.)

Why not pay for your treatments?? What the heck did we do before health ins????
I did when I lost my job. I carried catastrophic care insurance thru my state farm agent. I told docs I did not have ins and got lower rates. I still do not completly understand why the rate is changed for no ins. My insurance pays my dentist 1/2 what he charges and he takes it????

You are dead on with the private sector not being able to compete with gov. And I am going to be taxed more because of a gov program (it's our money they use) so that is even less I can afford
and there is no money anyway (deficit)

As for emr what about the internet???? I do background checks & peoples credit scores from my home computer. I think the ifrastructure is already there.

Yes reduced taxes for a health savings account specifically for med. if you do not need it you keep it and you carry catastrophic ins for a major event.

If I need a check up I shop for it. and use that money If I have to. if I run out ins kicks in. meanwhile doctors have to eat, they will do with less if they are competing. doctors less, meds less on down the line
I would take a paycut instead of being out of work
Oh and My family gets the money to use the same in the event of my untimely demise

I belive that is part of the alternative plan in the house but somehow no one hears of it

I am willing to suffer through and preserve the republic. not beg someone to solve a problem for me. they want this too bad and came up with thousands of pages too quickly... something smells. Too much power to be had by them.

I do not claim to know everything..other countries have gov control of healthcare. ours is still the best so why?

SirFuego
09-02-2009, 02:12 PM
price corrections/crashes will always come if the market is not interfered with. people in the industry will have to deal with less.
This I don't agree with -- at least in the context of health care. And it stems from the products and services having an inelastic demand.


Can you explain why Insurance companies in california are forced to cover sex change operations? regulations such as that can inflate insurace costs for everyone else. I am sure there are other items they have to cover that raises the cost. In short I am not ready to demonize ins co's
gov has a habit of being part of the problem then blame someone else
(gasoline tax, sub prime mortgage etc.)
Yup, agreed.


Why not pay for your treatments?? What the heck did we do before health ins????
I did when I lost my job. I carried catastrophic care insurance thru my state farm agent. I told docs I did not have ins and got lower rates. I still do not completly understand why the rate is changed for no ins. My insurance pays my dentist 1/2 what he charges and he takes it????
Catastrophic care insurance is still insurance. As for why they have no problems taking 1/2 the rate, refer back to my comment about inelastic demand. They KNOW what the insurance company will pay, so they jack up the rates for them. When there is no insurance, they have no problem taking 1/2 the rate because they can still make money (or make up for the loss with someone else having health insurance). Now in the case of the dentist, it's flipped because many companies offer health insurance, but not dental -- so he needs to rely more on patients to foot the bill rather than insurance companies (or at least that's how I'm thinking it pans out in my head). You are typically only looking at less than $1000 for major dental work (excluding braces) relatively infrequently. General medical problems can often be more expensive.

Sorta makes you realize that health insurance companies aren't always the bad guy when it comes to affordable health care, huh?


As for emr what about the internet???? I do background checks & peoples credit scores from my home computer. I think the ifrastructure is already there.
But there is no software to manage this infrastructure. I'm sure you could base the system off this current credit industry infrastructure, but there isn't yet a website you can just go to and retrieve or report EMRs.


Yes reduced taxes for a health savings account specifically for med. if you do not need it you keep it and you carry catastrophic ins for a major event.
This would also drive up the rates for catastrophic insurance since there will be an increased demand for it. So this might take you back to square one if it's not implemented correctly. I think this idea has some traction if it's developed a bit more, though. Definitely something to at least look into.


If I need a check up I shop for it. and use that money If I have to. if I run out ins kicks in. meanwhile doctors have to eat, they will do with less if they are competing. doctors less, meds less on down the line
I would take a paycut instead of being out of work
Oh and My family gets the money to use the same in the event of my untimely demise
You can already shop around as it is. Competition isn't completely sufficient in driving prices down for this particular market. Again, please refer to my inelastic demand comment.


I belive that is part of the alternative plan in the house but somehow no one hears of it
The information about this bill has been poor at best. There are too many myths out there to believe anything.


I am willing to suffer through and preserve the republic. not beg someone to solve a problem for me. they want this too bad and came up with thousands of pages too quickly... something smells. Too much power to be had by them.
I am all for a small gov't, too, but sometimes it needs to step in and offer a potential solution and leave it up to private industry to implement it.

Christopher
09-02-2009, 06:05 PM
I don't think were that far off.

Catastrophic insurance is just that.

Not be used for day to day small checkups/ I have a headache/ I have the flu give me pills / I need my teeth cleaned / I feel loopy I need a blood test minor usual stuff
So no those bread and butter jobs would be shopped.

As I understand insurance*** The more they have to pay out, the more expensive. the more people in it is cheaper. (isn't that part of the sell for gov option?)
catastrophic should cost less... there just are not that many catastophies

I think my wife is part of the problem Ha Ha. Couple days ago she said I have to go for an eye exam. Is something wrong? no but we pay for insurance and its covered so why not
If that happens as much as I think it does thats part of the problem. The docs will bill insurance what they want and we pay $20 She did not call around for a cheap price just whoever accepts our ins. If it was out of pocket we would get some recommendations and call around
you dont' need to go to the doc for the flu... stay at home have soup

I think it's big part of the problem. We have grown dependant on it

I think the inelasticity has grown from dependance and can be overcome. (after all YES WE CAN!!:030:)

We need to find a way to transition without giving power to the power hungry. I'll have to pay for a gov option wether I use it or not or jail time


I still think getting people their money to shop would be a big help not the only thing but big none the less

SirFuego
09-02-2009, 09:08 PM
Yeah we aren't that far off. I'm just trying to put my reasoning out there. Your ideas are definitely feasible.

That said, you talk to any insurance company and they probably want you to go for a yearly checkup (I was told this by a local health insurance company actually). In the whole scheme of things, it actually costs them less because many diseases are MUCH cheaper to treat when they are caught early.

Christopher
09-03-2009, 11:51 AM
Food for thought from a publication that normally really really hates people like me.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/03/india/index.html

it is worth reading and the comments as well