Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (1180)	2/7/2004 7:17:08 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

ChinuSFO, You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. You claim: At that convention he did not tell us that in Vermont he is required by law to balance the State budget. Well, duh! That's because you are misinformed. Here's proof: Vermont, uniquely, has no constitutional or statutory requirement for a balanced budget. ncsl.org Facts are a dangerous thing, Chinu. They can make you look like a fool pretty darn quick. *** Re: "He did not tell us that he balanced the budget by robbing Peter (senior programs) to pay Paul (those below 18)." Well, duh! Management is the art and craft of, well, managing. When we deal in reality, trade-offs have to be made. I don't know the particulars of which programs that Howard Dean may have curtailed among seniors in order to provide for his healthy baby initiatives. But the nature of things is that except in rare cases, pediatrics isn't all that expensive when the concept is the wellness model rather than the illness model. And this is what Dr. Dean was championing. Getting kids off to a good start has multiple rewards. Not only physical health, but educational success, preventing kids from growing up to part of a criminal underclass, etc. OTOH, realistic triage must consider the fact that "end of life" medical treatment is something that we Americans really need to re-examine. Nationally, it's a fact that over 35% of Medicare costs are incured by seniors in the last 90 days of their life. To me, there are better ways to deal with death. The hospice movement for one. "Death with Dignity" initiatives for another. The system today unfortunately seems to be designed to enrich the medical business without there being a real justification for the heroic life-saving efforts at the end of life for many, many people. Society, quite simply, is not properly addressing end of life issues and it is wasting a huge percentage of our nation's resources on an activity with little or no benefit to society when viewed over the long term. So chastising Dr. Dean for favoring the start of life over the wasting of assets at the end of life seems ridiculous to me. I regard Dr. Dean's sage policy to be wise management in a world with limited resources. *** Re: "He is a hypocrite when he tells the Iowans to vote for him and then you find out hard taped evidence that he was derogatory of the Iowa caucuses." Whoa, son. Come back to reality, will ya. I have a friend who is the former Democratic County Party Chairwoman here in Central Oregon. She volunteered to travel to Iowa and campaign on Dean's behalf. She was in the state for two weeks and witnessed the Iowa caucus system firsthand. It's a mess. Dr. Dean was completely correct about the bizarre nature of the caucuses when he discussed them on CBC in 2000. The caucus that my friend attended had two separate precincts meeting in one room. Chaos reigned, and it was impossible to hear yourself think in that room. There was no advocacy for candidates possible. Working parents couldn't attend because of family obligation, night shift workers couldn't attend because of jobs. Many seniors couldn't attend because of the cold and treacherous driving conditions. Those who did attend weren't really representative of the Democrats in Iowa. My friend came away completely dissatisfied with the system, and called it anti-democratic. So Dr. Dean was right to criticize the process. It stinks. It is rigged to favor the chosen candidate of the party insiders. Insurgencies simply don't get a fair shake. The caucus system simply isn't the best way to select a candidate. *** Re: He is a panderer when he introduced his wife instead of standing up for the right of his wife to privacy. As opposed to, say, the pandering of Teresa Heinz-Kerry who seems to relish spending her free time with the peons as she makes her run for Queen of America? I find your comments about Judy Steinberg's decision to stay out of the public limelight to be very offensive. Judy requited herself very well when called upon to help her husband in a tight spot. Your disdain for her seems vicious, small-minded and petty. Unfortunately, I'm discovering elements of your personality in your post that strike me as being juvenile, mean-spirited, ill-informed and remarkably partisan. Don't get me wrong, I'll vote for John Kerry if he's the candidate. But I won't feel any passion for the proposition. Howard Dean represented a clean break with the failed corporatist agenda of the Democratic Party. He was going to clean house, and get the party back into the hands of the people. I don't see why you have such a resentment of this. Kerry, OTOH, seems to be a Janus character who won't rein in the ridiculous over-growth of police state repression and imperial ambition that are making America appear to be an ogre to the other 96% of humanity on this planet. Kerry seems to be a compromiser, in an election when the people need a clear choice between the Bush Crime Cabal and honest and decent leadership. I simply don't see Kerry making the case for the people. His record is one of liberalism without leadership. Of posturing without progress. I prefer a man with a record of action.