From: SMS on
Bill Graham wrote:

> Here's a free hint: everything you dislike isn't automatically
> "socialist" or "communist". Those words have real definitions, and
> using them the same way some folks yell "NAZI!" at anyone they dislike
> only devalues the words and convinces everyone who has even a marginal
> grip on reality that you don't.

Yeah, "communist" has really been devalued.

I call people that cut me off in traffic communists. Or at least
Bolsheviks. In fact my son and I have a routine. When someone does
something stupid while driving, i.e. running a red light, not stopping
in the crosswalk, etc., I yell "communist!" (with my windows closed of
course) and my son responds with "liberal!"

I've never met a real communist, despite extensive travel in China.

When I took Mandarin language classes in the 1980's, the books being
used were from the 1960's and 1970's and the dialogs included relics of
the communist era in China, including addressing other people by
"comrade" (tong-zhi) and by addressing the spouse of someone you knew by
"love person" (ai-ren). When I went to China and tried to use phrases
and words like were in the book, I was told, 'we don't talk like that
any more.' In 1987, the first thing that our lovely tour guide in Wuxi
asked me as I bicycled across the Jiangsu province border was "teach me
bad words in English."

The camera I brought with me was my venerable Olympus XA. The A11 flash
broke while I was in China, and I had no flash until I bought an A16 in
San Francisco. I tried installing CHDK on the Olympus XA but I could not
find a place for the memory card.
From: SMS on
Bill Graham wrote:

> I think of it as the lesser of two evils. Right now, the government is
> giving my money away to the illegal aliens in bushel baskets,

Actually they're not, at least not the federal government directly. It's
the states that are required to provide education, and that are not
allowed to turn away anyone from emergency rooms regardless of their
ability to pay or whether or not they are here legally.

The federal government profits from illegal immigration (see
""), as do
many large corporations, which is why they are in no hurry to do
anything about it. Give the states unfunded mandates while at the same
time reminding the states that only the federal government has the
authority to enforce immigration laws--it's perfect.

> and they
> can't even stop the illegal immigration into this country by those
> anxious to get it.

What makes you think that they can't stop illegal immigration? Clinton,
under pressure from the labor unions, began enforcing the laws regarding
the employment of illegals. The corporations that depend on the illegals
went crazy. When W took office, enforcement was dropped.

What I'd like to see is the federal government give all social security
taxes collected from illegals back to the states to help fund health
care and education. But that would mean admitting that the federal
government knows that these people are here illegally, and would mean
that they were willing to give up these billions.
From: Twibil on
On Sep 16, 3:22 am, Chris H <ch...(a)> wrote:
> On the other hand for cosmetic surgery the US leads the way.  Just look
> at Michael Jackson.


They buried him, you know.
From: tony cooper on
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> If you consider $1000 to $3000 per month to be a "minimum" amount of
>>> money.

According to a recent study by Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health
Research and Educational Trust, the average annual premium for a
family plan is just over $13,000. Employers paid 74 percent of that
amount, and employees paid the balance.

Individuals not eligible for some group coverage by an employer will
pay considerably more than that for equivalent coverage. Employer
contributions vary from company to company.

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)> wrote in message
> "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis(a)> wrote in
> message
> news:2009091102101816807-christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmailcom...
> [ . . . ]
>> Congress has not learned its lesson. Bush's approval ratings were
>> justifiably low. Congress' were even lower and they remain lower today.
>> And it isn't because they haven't passed a health care package. It is
>> because they are idiots. They haven't learned that taxpayers are tired of
>> paying for earmarks, bailouts, and gigantic government programs that
>> accomplish nothing. No wonder the public does not trust health care
>> "reform" -- not one member of Congress (or even the President) has set
>> forth even a single goal that health care reform is supposed to
>> accomplish. All we get is vague mumbling about lower costs, without
>> explaining how adding an additional layer of government bureaucrats (who
>> all must be paid and given offices in which to 'work') along with their
>> attendant consultants, contractors, endless studies, and inevitably
>> confusing rules and regulations, all of which will be the source of
>> endless litigation, will lower costs.
>> Consider: for all the promise of banking "reform," which should have been
>> simpler than health care, nothing has actually changed, except that there
>> aren't as many banks.
> And if the health care bill gets signed into law, there probably won't be
> as many doctors.
> This morning's (Wednesday) Investor's Business Daily has a front-page
> headline saying:
> "45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting
> If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul.
> "Two of every three practicing physicians
> oppose the medical overhaul
> plan under consideration in
> Washington, and hundreds of
> thousands would think about
> shutting down their practices or
> retiring early if it were adopted, a
> new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.
> "The poll contradicts the claims
> of not only the White House, but
> also doctors' own lobby - the
> powerful American Medical Association
> - both of which suggest
> the medical profession is behind
> the proposed overhaul.
> "It also calls into question whether
> an overhaul is even doable; 72%
> of the doctors polled disagree
> with the administration's claim
> that the government can cover 47
> million more people with betterquality
> care at lower cost. [ . . . ]"
>> In fact, both the percentage and the total amount of risky loans in
>> banks' portfolios is actually higher now than what caused the collapse a
>> year ago. And all those perks and bonuses that the public hated so much?
>> They're bigger and better.
>> Economists originally predicted that the recession would end in June or
>> July. After trillions spent on bailouts and stimulus, Congress and the
>> Administration have managed to push that back until at least October,
>> while squandering all the capital that would be needed if a real
>> emergency arose. We're broke. If a major war broke out now, we couldn't
>> afford to fight it. Another Hurricane Katrina? Forget it -- FEMA is so
>> broke that they might not be able to handle so much as a wastebasket
>> fire. If we actually got another hurricane like Katrina, Obama might have
>> the singular distinction of making the Bush Administration's response
>> look good.
>> All Bush wanted to do in Afghanistan was catch a bunch of rascals who
>> were reduced to hiding in caves. Well, he could not even do that. So now
>> Obama wants to pacify the whole country, something that the Russians and
>> British and several other European countries have tried to do for
>> centuries with no success whatsoever. Even Alexander the Great couldn't
>> do it.
>> Oh, and lest we forget: Obama is still tapping phones; all he has done is
>> change the way the President pretends to get permission to do it. He
>> hasn't closed Gitmo; and if he does, all he really wants to do is
>> relocate it, probably to the district of some Congressman he doesn't
>> like. All the 9/11 insecurity measures and Patriot Act are still in place
>> (unless, of course, the President wants to terrorize New York City by
>> buzzing it with Air Force One again -- heck, if I was him, I'd be doing
>> it every day). Homeland Security is still around. So, really, if you
>> hated George W. Bush, you have to completely despise Barack Obama.
>> Not that Obama actually knows anything about security. His idea of
>> foreign policy appears to be allowing North Korea and Iran to continue to
>> get away with continued development of nuclear weapons and threats to
>> wipe their neighbors off the map. Draws a sharp tsk, tsk from Obama, but
>> nothing else. So now two of the most dangerous regimes in the world will
>> be armed to the teeth with nukes, convinced that the US is a paper tiger,
>> with every incentive to actually use them and little to no apparent
>> disincentive.
> All well and truly said.
Gitmo is the perfect solution to a difficult problem.....There is absolutely
no reason to shut it down. All that would do is present a bigger
problem.....It was a mistake for Obama to suggest it to begin with, and now
he has to "eat his words". (It did help him get elected, however)