78 responses so far ↓

• #1   TickleMyBambo

  Next time, on Care Bears:

  Snuggle Rainbow Farting Bear teaches us a lesson on how Passive Aggressive notes written in crayon are hardly taken seriously and that it is better to share, share, SHARE your feelings to your friends face to face instead of hiding behind silly notes. Subplot includes Grumpy bear sending Note writer to the corner for time out as punishment for even uttering Barney’s name.

  Apr 18, 2011 at 8:20 pm   rating: 90  
  reply to this comment
   

• #2   Party in my pants

  Funny… I thought Goucher was a community college, not the other way around.
  Share, share, that’s fair… Is that a quote from Barney or Obama?

  Apr 18, 2011 at 8:33 pm   rating: 90  
  reply to this comment

  • #2.1   Canthz_B

    Must be Obama’s if that’s the only choice given.

    Considering what happened to the dinosaurs, Barney would be about the last one teaching kids that life is fair.

    My personal choice would be Elmo though, because I just can’t see Elmo advocating tax cuts for the wealthy while funds for pre-school programs for children are cut back and some of those with health insurance are against health insurance for everyone if it’s going to cost them a piddling few bucks a year.

    Fuck the Declaration of Independence. The Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are greatly overrated…unless you can afford them.
    Turn that whole document on its ear and have it say that a government that does not care for its people deserves the consent of the People to govern the People.

    To oppose universal health care or the asking of the very wealthiest to give a little back to the society which enabled them to become wealthy is to do the first thing Thomas Jefferson accused King George III of doing:

    …”To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good….”

    Or did anyone squawking about what our Founding Fathers wanted for us and the Declaration of Independence ever bother to read what they had to say on the matter?
    Those who oppose laws necessary for the public good for their own narrow, selfish reasons should not be allowed to govern us. Jefferson was quite clear on this point.

    Apr 19, 2011 at 12:09 am   rating: 90  
     

  • #2.2   Oh Geeeee

    The Pursuit of Happiness bit was a mere puffery statement meant to motivate folks to fight. The Bill of Rights loses it for the more pragmatic Property. And not to be a pain but the Founding Fathers hardly pictured pre-school for anyone but the wealthy; there were no public schools at the time. Finally, I very much doubt (see, e.g., the Constitution) that Jefferson, or any one else of the times, imagined the inefficient, ill equipped, poorly run, morass of incompetency that the Federal Government has become. Decisions, like universal health care, like those associated with schooling, and most others that effect our day-to-day lives belong to the individual States. The answer is not more laws, it’s less (at least on a Federal level). All laws should be scrutinized by considering the individual liberties that the Founders fought for, including the right to pursue property. And actually finally, as long as we’re having a history lesson I believe what set off the revolution was too MUCH taxation, not too little. I’m not saying there aren’t areas of agreement between your philosophy and mine, but please don’t pull the pretentious “what this country was founded on” bullshit card, because I think the current day Federalists pretty much own that one

    Apr 19, 2011 at 6:08 am   rating: 90  
     

  • #2.3   Daniel

    Calling the Bill of Rights “puffery” must be one of those techniques that makes it easier to dismiss it bit by bit …

    Apr 19, 2011 at 6:18 am   rating: 90  
     

  • #2.4   Oh Geeee

    I didn’t – there is no right to the pursuit of happiness in the Bill, that’s my point. It was ditched for the word property.

    Apr 19, 2011 at 6:44 am   rating: 90  
     

  • #2.5   Oh Geeeee

    And – because I can’t let it go – here is my proof:

    Article V of the Constitution:

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

    Note: life, liberty, or PROPERTY. It seriously irritates me that you would accuse me of dismissing the Bill of Rights bit by bit. After all, my argument above is largely based in the little known Article 10 of the Bill of Rights:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Apr 19, 2011 at 7:11 am   rating: 90  
     

  • #2.6   Canthz_B

    Um, I’m referring to the Declaration of Independence…a totally different document than The Constitution of the United States.
    I’m referring to the ideals set forth in 1776…not what was done with them after much compromise in 1787.

    “When, in the course of human events…” not “We the People, in order to form a more perfect Union…”

    We are always striving to form a more perfect Union, that’s why it helps to unlock our minds from the Constitution and remind ourselves of the Declaration of Independence every now and again. The Constitution is amendable, the Declaration is just what it says it is…a declaration of what the minds of the time were thinking, and more importantly why.

    I’ll concede that I’m no constitutional scholar, but seems to me that “…or to the People” could be construed to mean that if The People vote for a President who campaigns on universal health care as one of his/her main goals, The People have claimed their right to universal health care under that little piece of the 10th Amendment…just maybe…because I’m no lawyer and don’t claim to know the ins and outs of this subject.

    I do know though that the Revolution was not about too much taxation, it was about not having a say in what taxes were levied…taxation without representation(I’m pretty sure each American has a representation in Congress these days, so just because your view may not win the day does not mean you were not represented in the debate as the colonists were not represented in the House of Lords or the House of Commons in 1776). Bottom line is the ungrateful colonists did not want to foot the bill for the French and Indian War and told King George to shove it.
    And just because I cannot let go (you all know me):

    “Jefferson was the first American leader to suggest creating a public school system. His ideas formed the basis of education systems developed in the 19th century.”
    Source.

    So yes, the Founding Fathers did envision a publicly run system of education and, I suspect, the bureaucracy that goes with having one.

    Apr 19, 2011 at 8:06 am   rating: 90  
     

  • #2.7   Oh Geeeee

    I saw that you were referring to the Declaration of Independence… which is an interesting tact when discussing current legal issues. The Declaration, unfortunately, conveys no rights to “We the people,” or any other people… The Declaration was not meant to convey rights – that wasn’t its purpose! When the Founding Fathers decided to convey rights they made sure to think about them long and hard and what we got was the Bill of Rights. And even under the Declaration – no one would have anticipated universal health care.
    As for electing Obama being a call to amend the Constitution – sorry, the Constitution needs a 2/3rds majority in the House and Senate and then ratification by 3/4′s of the states. Just electing some dude doesn’t cut it. Not that I don’t like Obama, I did vote for him. But thank God we can’t just change the Constitution with a mere majority – look at the opinion of the masses towards little things like religious freedom right about now. It ain’t a good time to be Muslim. Would a majority of the yahoos living in this great Nation vote for someone to take away their rights? Ask Tennessee and their currently pending law making it a felony to provide financial support for any organization encouraging Sharia law (ya know, praying 5 times a day facing towards the east). Hells, we can’t even get rid of the Defense of Marriage Act.
    Now I’m not one for making the historical argument, I think that relying on the text of founding documents is totally Antonin Scalia’esque (although even HE wouldn’t rely on the Declaration in support of universal healthcare). We are in a day and age with public education (for example), an age of equality – we’ve all done some growing in the last couple of centuries.
    And I don’t think that healthcare for everyone is wrong, and I don’t think that the wealthy shouldn’t kick in more. What I do think is that it’s a state’s call – leaving it to the states provides greater accountability, it provides more flexibility for experimentation (we won’t get it right first go around), and it provides less money being lost in layers of needless administration. Massachusetts has the right to enforce health insurance regulations (and it does), the Federal government does not. And that’s how the Founding Fathers did it, quite intentionally.

    Apr 19, 2011 at 8:38 am   rating: 90  
     

  • #2.8   Oh Geeeee

    Oh crud – and I can’t just leave it there. On the Taxation without Representation subject – giving too much power to the Federal government is tantamount to taxation without representation. The Senate, love em to death, only 100 guys. They are so swamped in attempting to deal with the enormous amount of power being given the federal government that they aren’t even reading what they’re passing! Can I really claim to be represented by a guy who will never read 85% of what goes into law? And it’s not like I blame him, additions to the United States Code of Laws, the Code of Federal Regulations, etc. number in the thousands and thousands of pages a year. No representative could read all of that, even if he did nothing but read, and never ever took the time to become marginally informed on any one issue. And what happens when the Legislature becomes over burdened? Stuff doesn’t get done (no estate tax for 2010, this whole budget fiasco, etc.) or they delegate authority to governmental agencies. Now these agencies can make law, effectively, by passing regulations – these regulations are not voted on or even really looked at by the folks I elected (or you elected). These regulators are beyond the control of “We the People.” If you don’t like a new set of regs from the Department of Justice, for example – tough. Now, imagine if you will, that the States took on more of this authority – I can only imagine that it would lead to greater transparency and accountability. So I do feel there is taxation without representation. (shrug) sorry.

    Apr 19, 2011 at 8:47 am   rating: 90  
     

  • #2.9   Canthz_B

    Yes, you’re represented by your representative, that doesn’t mean you’ll always get what you want though. That’s just not how it works.
    If I lived in Mississippi in 1935, do you think my representatives (House and Senate) sitting in Congress were doing what was best for my black ass? Looking out for my best interests as they fought against anti-lynching laws? No! Just the nature of the beast, my friend.

    You’re unfortunately missing my point. I’m just saying that sometimes we need to back up off of the technical-emotional-legal…and think about basic fairness and how best to accomplish that goal. How we can continue to form a more perfect Union while keeping pace with the times.

    Not trying to start another war here. There’s no point in doing so with someone in an entrenched position, now is there?

    You may of course refuse to assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good…but sometimes you may be outvoted even with representation at the table.

    More tea?

    Apr 19, 2011 at 8:51 am   rating: 90  
     

  • #2.10   Oh Geeeee

    Ohhhh man, and I didn’t respond to your Jefferson public education point. Point to you. He did envision it, which is nice. Unfortunately he was just one man. So Founding FatherS is a little bit of an exaggeration. But there were others back then saying the same things. I’ll concede the point. Thank goodness your Source also supports my main argument:

    “Individual states—rather than the federal government—have primary authority over public education in the United States.”

    Sooo ALL the bureaucracy, the Federal Department of Education… (wince) not so sure. Also, and this is a totally tangential side point, my husband attended Hartford Public High School, which is the second oldest still operating public high school – and which is also one of the worst high schools in the State of Connecticut for drop out rates and test scores. Apparently, even after almost 400 years to figure everything out it just can’t pull its act together. And, as someone with in-laws within the system I’d say it’s at least partially due to the bureaucracy.

    Apr 19, 2011 at 9:02 am   rating: 90  
     

  • #2.11   Canthz_B

    Yes, Jefferson was but one man…one man with a whole lot of clout and a whole lot of people who agreed with his position on the matter of public education.
    I’ve even heard a vicious rumor that he was but one man his whole life, so nothing he thought should matter today.

    I had a good public school education, but agree that the system is broken today. I do not, however, believe we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.
    Where you’d use a meat cleaver, I might use a paring knife. We’d both cut the fat away, but you’d be more likely to chop off valuable meat.

    Apr 19, 2011 at 9:18 am   rating: 90  
     

  • #2.12   Oh Geeeee

    I don’t care if my representative makes an informed decision opposite to my own personal preference. I live in the Northeast, it’s going to happen. But I’m not receiving representation when my elected official is too time-crunched to even understand the issue or to fulfill his basic job obligations.

    As for the point overall – I’m all for achieving basic fairness. But I think my basic fairness would be different than yours. What if my basic fairness said that someone who works hard to earn money should get to keep it? The income tax wasn’t ratified until the 16th amendment in 1913′ish, I think (take that Founding Fathers – hahaha!). I’m not actually against the wealthy paying more, I think that’s fair. But you’re talking fair in a system that’s already fubar, and the way to fix it is not to empower the Federal Gov’t further! You refer to keeping pace with the times but you’re the one that started with the Declaration. Why not ground an argument in something a little more modern and exciting? I don’t like the historical arguments they bore me :-/ I was never good in history class. The key is not a textualist approach to either Declaration or Bill, but is an analysis in light of the evolution of society. And I guess that’s what drew me to the discussion in the first place – I don’t do textualist arguments, they irritate me.

    As for the tea, I don’t do tea – I’m more of a Coke gal; anything I can do to support those corporate giants

    Apr 19, 2011 at 9:26 am   rating: 90  
     

  • #2.13   Oh Geeeee

    And oohhhh man, you have no idea what I’d do to public education. I would privatize the sucker, go to a voucher system and make the vouchers inversely proportionate to the socio-economic status of the parents thus hopefully encouraging schools to take those children who would normally be left behind. I think that choice, competition, and accountability for teachers and administrators is the only way to ensure services reach the working poor. I also think that a privatized environment would encourage economies that have not been realized in an institution layered in bureaucracy.

    Hah you think that’s nuts – you should see what I’d do to the prison industrial complex, I’m not abolitionist quite yet but I’m close.

    Apr 19, 2011 at 9:30 am   rating: 90  
     

  • #2.14   TickleMyBambo

    (Inserts passive aggressive comment about politics)

    (Inserts witty comment to seem clever)

    (Insert sarcastic solution here)

    Sincerely,

    Can we make a Barney Incess joke now?

    Apr 19, 2011 at 1:55 pm   rating: 90  
     

  • #2.15   The Elf

    I love you
    You love me
    Necrobestiality

    Apr 19, 2011 at 2:15 pm   rating: 90  
     

  • #2.16   Meepmeep

    Goucher is a private college.

    Apr 19, 2011 at 2:17 pm   rating: 90  
     

  • #2.17   TickleMyBambo

    With a great big thrust,
    and some tongue from me to you,
    Won’t you join my orgy too?

    Apr 19, 2011 at 2:21 pm   rating: 90  
     

  • #2.18   Canthz_B

    I swore I wouldn’t do this, so instead of explaining how privatization would ruin private education as schools scramble to add desks and chairs to collect all of the lovely money thereby increasing class size, I’ll just say I love it when anti-tax people talk vouchers…as if those suckers are cost free pieces of paper and no one is paying taxes to cover all of the vouchers. I love how those whose mantra has always been “Stop throwing money at the problem.” advocate throwing money at the problem…as long as the money gets into the hands of large corporations and not teachers. Not to mention all of the lovely tax dollars which will go to religious institutions which will never have to pay a dime of income tax on any of it…money out of the system, but no money coming back into the system to cycle back and help pay for more vouchers. No, I will not explain that putting in more than you can expect to get back in any way shape or form means you’re creating an unsustainable system over time.
    Brilliant use of public funds?

    I won’t say how choice is no real choice, because really good schools will never have enough seats for all of the students wanting in, so there will always be those who are shit out of luck come September and have to attend a sub-standard school.

    Of course, there is no incentive to taking a child based upon the worth of his/her voucher, because more well-to-do parents with lesser or no vouchers are capable of paying the tuition. The schools aren’t getting any extra benefit from accepting kids with big vouchers, and talk about government interference in our private lives…try showing some Education Department bureaucrat your tax statement every year!!
    Better yet, watch as tuition costs skyrocket…or are we for government regulation of tuition now?

    What will probably happen in the long run, as schools give preference to current students for next school year (in the interest of continuity and stability for the students’ sake of course, not to keep “undesirables” out *wink, wink*), is that a large number of students (probably the poor) will find themselves permanently locked into sub-standard schools…worthless vouchers in hand.
    Then there’s the fun of finding out that your kid is getting bumped next year because he/she didn’t maintain a high enough GPA…can’t have little Billy or Mary messing up our stats, now can we?

    Choice? No. The best schools will skim the best students off the top, and everyone else will have vouchers only useful for average and below average schools.

    Competition will keep prices low if there are competing furniture stores, but no student studies harder because grades are higher across town at another school. Same goes for health care. No one looks for the cheapest doctor, they stay with the doctor they TRUST, no matter the cost.
    There’s a place for competition in this economy of ours to be sure. These don’t happen to be those places…because that’s just not how these systems work or how people behave in practice.

    But that’s just conjecture on my part, because I’m not an Educator nor am I a School Board member, so I’ll leave this topic alone as well.

    Apr 19, 2011 at 8:29 pm   rating: 90  
     

  • #2.19   Oh Geeee

    So basically you’re worried about everything that happens now happening… Entire generations of poor stuck in sub standard schools, Expanding classrooms (my sister-in-law teaches in one of 37 inner city students), lack of resources, lack of choice. But where I suggest a solution you merely criticized mine based on all the factors currently happening. So I ask this, for decades our schools have failed, they have failed to educate, they have failed to desegregate, they have contributed to the so-called school-to-prison pipeline. How now? Because you’re right in that throwing money at it doesn’t help.

    P to the S… I’m not anti-tax, never said I was. In fact I said I was all for the wealthy paying more. I think the tax system is inverted though. I would see people paying he same amount or more but would throw the most, not the least, to the localities. Then the States, then the Feds. I don’t like large Centralized government because of the lack of accountability, transparency, etc. I’m not a tea partier, dude, I’m largely federalist… There’s a difference. My locality controls those things that effect my day-to-day – schools, roads, police and fire departments. Why not give them the biggest chunk of my tax dollars?

    Apr 20, 2011 at 6:59 am   rating: 90  
     

  • #2.20   Canthz_B

    Not at all, my thoughtful friend, I’m saying that the public schools need to be fixed, not scrapped…nothing more.
    They used to work, and can again with prudent changes.

    Sometimes it’s cheaper to fix your car than to buy a new one, you know? Especially if the interest on the new car loan will bankrupt you.

    Why not give localities the biggest chunk of tax dollars indeed. How about because poor communities would (and do) get way more per capita than rich ones of state tax dollars and rich communities tend to not only resent that, but also financially support politicians.

    The tax chips are stacked against the poor, I’ll give two examples: They raise taxes on beer, but not wine. They raise taxes on cigarettes, but not cigars. Who do you think they’re taxing? The rich or the poor with these policies? Oh, but raise taxes on yachts and other luxury items and all hell breaks loose…jobs will be lost!

    But no. You want to see a return on your investment for your tax dollars. As if taxes have ever been an investment for our personal gain in the first place.

    Well, you get that return every time someone gets to take a tax-deduction on their mortgage loan interest payments. How many renters get to write-off any of their rent on their federal taxes again? So it’s good for the Feds to encourage home-ownership as long has they have no influence on our private lives, but giving a tax deduction has no influence on private life, affluence…and the perpetuation thereof? Every time your elders receive a Social Security check. Every time Medicare pays their medical bills (Ohmagod! government run heath care! We’d never sanction that!! No one wants it, except our elderly…). Every time you drive upon an interstate highway, every time our military protects your security, every time some poor kid gets a Pell Grant and goes to college rather than a life of crime and does not mug you, and grows up to be your doctor, lawyer or accountant instead of a convict in some prison your tax dollars pay to maintain. Those among countless other things your precious tax dollars pay for.

    We used to call that contribution of our share of the wealth “a contribution to society as a whole”…I don’t know what you selfish bastards call it these days, but you may try understanding why you pay said taxes.

    Apr 20, 2011 at 8:39 am   rating: 90  
     

  • #2.21   Oh Geeeee

    Sometimes you just gotta bite the bullet and buy a new car. If I had a car that failed me half the time, I would buy a new one.

    Selfish bastard? Absolutely But as much as you’d like to turn this into a discussion about whether everyone has an obligation to contribute to society it’s just not that. I mean yeah, that’s an easier argument for you to win because what kind of ass wants to see puppies, kittens, and children starving on the streets?!?

    But that’s not me. I do want to see resources used in the most efficient and effective manner, however. And layers upon layers of bureaucracy wastes billions of dollars. You’re right, I want to see a return on my tax investment – not just a return for me, but a return for my neighbors, my friends, my friends’ kids, your kids (if any), the homeless guy down the street. I want to see the money DOING something.

    Now you’re right again, there are benefits provided by the federal government and you listed quite a few. Our interstate infrastructure (the highways) are falling apart. The conditions in the Bureau of Prisons (and state systems) are unconstitutional at best and reflect mass-incarceration on a scale otherwise unknown in the world. The general public has no idea what is happening in those prisons. Decarceration would save a shit-ton of money, which is why one of the first steps President Obama made when faced with the budget crisis was to call for the release of several thousand federal inmates. The amount spent on the military represents a ludicrous amount of the federal budget (anyone seen the Ben and Jerry’s guy oreo video clip? hilarious). The kids benefited by Pell grants represent a tiny fraction of all the kids that need help, sure we save one from the nasty streets and watch 9 of his peers go to prison. Meanwhile the percentage of minority and low-income students who could ever benefit from a Pell grant drop as the drop out rates increase. Do you really want to pat yourself on the back for all of that? Sure it’s better than nothing but I think there’s dramatic room for improvement that would best be realized by empowering state and local governments.

    As for medicare and health care generally again you’re blatantly misrepresenting my argument so I will reiterate. As much as I’d like to say I’m all for stepping over the bodies of poor bastards without health care littering the streets, it just sounds (shrug) messy. I mean, what the hell? I might get ick on my shoes!

    I support government funded health care and making sure that health care is available for everyone – I really do. Massachusetts does that and has for years, and I feel it’s largely effective. I would vote for representatives advocating the same in Connecticut. There have been issues sure, but Massachusetts is working to address them. I do not support FEDERALLY funded health care and the current Medicare system is a perfect example of why. Not to beat a dead horse or anything but states enacting any sort of policy can innovate and respond much faster than the Federal gov’t can/will. We wont get it right the first time and therefore we need to be ready to adjust – States can do that, based both on their own experiences and the experiences of sister states. The Feds can’t. yadda yadda so on and so forth. Blah blah transparency, blah accountability blah.

    The End.

    Apr 20, 2011 at 10:28 am   rating: 90  
     

  • #2.22   Oh Geeeee

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1446967173716339237#

    The Ben and Jerry guy cookie video Brilliance.

    Apr 20, 2011 at 10:37 am   rating: 90  
     

  • #2.23   Canthz_B

    I happen to work in the heath care industry, my company was instrumental in constructing the current heath care bill/law and I respectfully submit that you don’t fully understand the subject. I’ll leave it at that as I am working on becoming a kinder and gentler CB.
    I will wish you a good day, though.

    Interestingly enough those who complain about layers of bureaucracy rarely know much about bureaucracies and how they operate.
    Surprising as it may seem, some can be quite dynamic and flexible. I know that fact is quietly kept, but what else do we have?

    Apr 20, 2011 at 10:53 am   rating: 90  
     

  • #2.24   Canthz_B

    You have your personal opinion, and I have mine…that’s why we allow our Representatives in Congress to come to accord on these matters (in congress), right?

    Wow! Full circle!

    Can’t speak to Connecticut’s Medicare system…because there isn’t one . Medicare is Federal, you probably mean to say Medicaid…which I happen to pay claims for every day for Connecticut, Maryland, Texas and Arizona.

    It sometimes pays to know of what you speak. You might start by learning the difference between Medicare and Medicaid.

    Issues, surely there are…rest assured that I’m there to help get some of those issues resolved. That’s what I do for a living. I make sure your health plan works well so you can be free to deny health care to others. As a Research and Adjustment Analyst I find and correct system errors for your dumb ass. I do my small part for your welfare, you comfortable SOB.

    Apr 20, 2011 at 12:24 pm   rating: 90  
     

  • #2.25   se

    Oh Geee, I agree with you that the Federal Gov adds another layer to the health care/school costs, etc. As you’ve pointed out, Mass has begun one and Conn may or may not enact one, but 2 out of 50 states doesn’t really cover that many people. The only way way that the country as a whole can or will do anything is if the Federal Gov gets involved. I, for one, wish that the states would do it on their own.
    The Federal Gov is messy, bloated, slow to react, but what else is there?

    Apr 20, 2011 at 1:03 pm   rating: 90  
     

  • #2.26   Oh Geeeee

    CB – Oh for pete’s sake you appear to have some sort of problem with reading. Maybe I should have been more clear, I wasn’t referring to any State’s personal medicare system – I was referring to Massachusetts’ health care act enacted well before the Federal one. Massachusetts requires health insurance for everyone – subject to limited exceptions, in an attempt to ensure everyone has coverage. I am fully aware of the difference between Medicare and Medicaid.

    You’re making it really difficult to refrain from excessively snide comments because of your insistence on throwing insults into what has been an interesting intellectual and political discussion. I think you may be taking this all more seriously than I am.

    Look – even assuming you and yours worked on Obamacare it’s complex. It’s large, it’s complex, implementation will be a nightmare (which is why there is still a complete lack of guidance and regulations), it won’t be perfect – no legislation is, ever; something this new will need fiddling with, calibrating, adjustments, adaptability; there will be unanticipated and unintended consequences; there will be ways to improve; to evolve the system as society changes; courts will spend decades interpreting it because of gray areas. That’s inevitable with any large scale legislation and you could tell me you’re the Albert Einstein of drafting legislation with a specialty in health care and I would tell you that’s all still true. This isn’t a personal attack – for serious. You don’t need to cuss me out It’s ok, really. And all I’m saying, all I ever said, in the entirety of this conversation, was that States move faster in implementing changes to existing legislation to reflect the realities of what’s happening. States can address concerns that arise faster. There is more than one way to skin a cat, the states can examine them, try different things, see what works, and learn from experiences (their own and other states). Please, please – if you insist on name calling again at least write “Voldemort” at the bottom so that I know you read this; I’m starting to suspect you’re not reading any of my responses and are just carrying on an interesting political diatribe against an imagined foe.

    se – I guess I have more faith than you, I think that the states would eventually all adopt health care plans. I think it would take longer, but I think that the advantage of that is the ability of state legislatures to learn from the experiences of other states and to try new things. I can’t cite any examples off the top of my head but it’s my belief that states tend to follow the others leads on stuff like this (I know freedom of information statues worked that way). Hopefully even with Obamacare the states will be inspired to take a step above that, to implement their own systems, and Obamacare will be merely a floor like the federal minimum wage.

    Apr 20, 2011 at 2:15 pm   rating: 90  
     

  • #2.27   Oh Geeeee

    CB
    http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=mg2subtopic&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Resident&L2=Health&L3=Health+Care+Reform&sid=massgov2

    Information on the MASSACHSUETTS Health Care Reform Act (which is neither Medicare nor Medicaid ;-)) in case you’re truly curious.

    Apr 20, 2011 at 2:29 pm   rating: 90  
     

  • #2.28   Mrs.Beasley

    Following this exchange definitely left me with a pearls before swine vibe.

    Apr 20, 2011 at 5:20 pm   rating: 90  
     

  • #2.29   Sonya

    Geeeee, you rule.

    Apr 20, 2011 at 7:39 pm   rating: 90  
     

  • #2.30   bliffit

    My grandfather refused, on principle, to use his Medicare benefits. I have no idea how much he paid in but I wish we’d gotten that money back because it really would’ve helped me pay for college.

    Apr 20, 2011 at 10:14 pm   rating: 90  
     

  • #2.31   HP

    This was a really good exchange and I was rooting for each of you at different times. Alas, CB turned into his normal a-hole self once he got backed into a corner. As always, he turns to his brand of nauseating condescension. Good job Geee for remaining an adult. You win!

    Apr 21, 2011 at 10:32 am   rating: 90  
     

  • #2.32   Oh Geeeee

    Thanks HP and Sonya – As an anti-tax, selfish bastard, dumbass, comfortable SOB I’ll take any “win” I can.

    To be fair, however, CB did have me down for the count towards the end there and if he’d stuck to it I would have admitted I have no good answer. What he said, assuming I interpreted it correctly (I’m sure he’ll tell me if I didn’t, lol), is that if, as my taxing schema relies on, most tax dollars are spent on the local level it will ensure an endless perpetuation of the upper class. I still think that most tax dollars should be spent on those things maintained by the localities, police and fire departments, our road systems, our schools and that local governments are in the best position to effectively manage these sorts of day-to-day resources. At the same time, however, if no adjustments are made that means that the wealthier communities hold on to their wealth and get better services overall and the poorer communities are left to scrape by. If CB had stuck to that argument instead of going off on the healthcare tangent I woulda been the undeniable loser of this little back and forth.

    I guess my response is that there would need to be modifications and redistributions, maybe even at the state level, to spread the wealth a bit. I still wouldn’t do it through the Feds because a lot more than mere financial calculations go into what a City or town needs – often the most per-student cost is associated with the poorest performing schools. Clearly that’s not a problem with the money so much as the way it’s spent and I think that the Feds do not have the resources available to take all the different variables into account while redistributing wealth/resources. CB was right that the wealthy residents support the election campaigns so that sort of embitters any opportunity for real redistribution of wealth – but that’s true at a federal level as well and I think doing it at a state level leaves more room for transparency and accountability and less for sketchiness.

    In the end it’s not like this little debate is going to go away – the proper apportionment of power between the individual states and the feds is a discussion that’s been going on since the Constitution was signed. I just like weighing in sometimes because I feel that folks don’t expect my viewpoints. I say I’m all for state’s rights and they somehow hear “anti-tax,” (as noted, I would not have anyone pay less tax, just pay it differently) and “screw the little guy” (I support social services, really). I enjoy playing with those preconceived notions a little. And quite frankly, being a law student, I live for the intellectual challenge of an argument with an educated opponent. I’m disappointed when the tone of the conversation degenerates quite as quickly as this one did. I guess CB wasn’t having as much fun as I was lol.

    Apr 21, 2011 at 5:16 pm   rating: 90  
     

  • #2.33   Canthz_B

    LOL…I had a grand time, G…just got under pressure to get to my job. Flex time only flexes so far.

    It was a pleasure to banter with a thoughtful mind.
    For that much alone I gave you a thumb-up, I wish I could give a dozen of them!

    I’m sure we’ll all find our way to that more perfect Union…we always do, and it’s through these types of exchanges we get there.

    Contrary to some opinions, this was about an exchange of ideas, not winners or losers (kind of sad that’s all they took away from this, points to how much improvement our education system needs), but as my debate coach would have told me…”CB, don’t allow your blood to boil, it’s just a debate. Think it through.”

    Apr 22, 2011 at 7:54 am   rating: 90  
     
  add to this thread
   

• #3   Lissla

  I went to Goucher and all I can say is that the initial passive aggressive note sums up the school perfectly. As does the response, actually.

  Also, Jeffery House sucks. Bacon House forever!

  Apr 18, 2011 at 8:44 pm   rating: 90  
  reply to this comment

  • #3.1   TickleMyBambo

    Mmmmmm Bacon ^_^

    Apr 18, 2011 at 8:55 pm   rating: 90  
     

  • #3.2   Mel

    Bacon House sucks! Wagner House forever!

    Apr 18, 2011 at 11:21 pm   rating: 90  
     

  • #3.3   snee

    bacon house was–say it with me now–fucking delicious!

    Apr 19, 2011 at 1:29 am   rating: 90  
     

  • #3.4   tinas

    Wagner Pirate Crew!

    Apr 19, 2011 at 2:18 pm   rating: 90  
     

  • #3.5   brookejp

    Bacon is all girls. +
    Wagner had pirates +
    Wagner, right next to stimson +
    Bacon, Prettier rooms, more singles +
    Bacon, had a handicapped bathroom with no elevator.

    Bacon wins.

    Apr 21, 2011 at 10:09 pm   rating: 90  
     
  add to this thread
   

• #4   Jen

  isn’t stealing basically just forcing someone else to “share share”?

  Apr 18, 2011 at 9:24 pm   rating: 90  
  reply to this comment

  • #4.1   TickleMyBambo

    Stealing is sharing! Just without the asking nicely part of it. Call it: Passive Aggressive Sharing.

    Apr 18, 2011 at 9:55 pm   rating: 90  
     

  • #4.2   Cynta E.

    Yes, whether that student can afford it or not. It seems that student doesn’t have even a pen or marker, wonder what the policies are on work submitted in crayon… The second note writer probably hasn’t had to deal with oblivious, daddy-paid-for-me-to-be-here-so-if-I-decide-I-can-take-whatever-I-want-what’s-the-big-deal dormers share sharing his/her food on a working student’s budget. Theft is theft, shame on the thief.

    Apr 18, 2011 at 10:05 pm   rating: 90  
     

  • #4.3   JetJackson

    Exactly! We wouldn’t have to steal if they would share.

    Bloody lefties!

    Apr 18, 2011 at 11:27 pm   rating: 90  
     

  • #4.4   AuntyBron

    @ Tickle – Unless you use a handgun – then there ain’t nothing passive about that kind of sharing.

    Apr 18, 2011 at 11:48 pm   rating: 90  
     

  • #4.5   TickleMyBambo

    No, AuntyBron, using a handgun would make that hostile negotiation! At least with Passive Aggressive Sharing, because of one’s awesome sneaky ninja skills.. Not only do you not have to face the person with whom you’re steeeaa, eh.. I mean, SHARING with, but you also don’t really have to rough them up unless you have to : ).

    Apr 19, 2011 at 3:26 am   rating: 90  
     

  • #4.6   madrugada

    @Tickle – don’t you mean awesome sneeky ninja skilz?

    Apr 19, 2011 at 5:58 am   rating: 90  
     

  • #4.7   The Elf

    Cynta E, yeah theft is theft. We all know that. The comments here about it being sharing are jokes. Still, this PAN got all political about it, which makes it more funny than reasonable.

    Apr 19, 2011 at 6:23 am   rating: 90  
     

  • #4.8   TickleMyBambo

    @madrugada: Yes! I am a very SNEEKY scorn womon with awesome ninja skillz!! My training now includes learning how to control my sex emotions.

    Apr 19, 2011 at 1:38 pm   rating: 90  
     
  add to this thread
   

• #5   Canthz_B

  Crayons and Barney? Must be a junior college…a Nick Jr. college.

  Apr 18, 2011 at 11:57 pm   rating: 90  
  reply to this comment

  • #5.1   TickleMyBambo

    More like the Pre school for the college students

    Apr 19, 2011 at 3:34 am   rating: 90  
     

  • #5.2   willothwisp

    Nope, a good college actually. One that has probably as many crayon and drawing parties as get drunk parties. You tell me what is more grown up- throwing up while not really meaningfully interacting or having a throw back while actually talking and connecting.

    But really man, somebody ate a good deal of my already half eaten cookie dough out of the T fridge and just left the rest. WTF?

    Apr 19, 2011 at 6:59 pm   rating: 90  
     

  • #5.3   The Elf

    Cookie dough? In a college where crayon and drawing parties are common, it’s inevitable that somebody would get the munchies and eat some of your cookie dough. Buy a mini-fridge for yourself and lock it.

    Apr 20, 2011 at 10:04 am   rating: 90  
     
  add to this thread
   

• #6   Canthz_B

  Share, share, that’s fair.

  Swift hands, fleet feet, you’re beat.

  Apr 19, 2011 at 12:04 am   rating: 90  
  reply to this comment
   

• #7   snee

  ASSHOLE STOLE MY CRAYONS!

  Apr 19, 2011 at 1:37 am   rating: 90  
  reply to this comment
   

• #8   The Elf

  I love this – we’re a community, which means we share, which means YOU DON’T TOUCH MY FOOD. NO FOOD FOR YOU. It’s not like corporate America, where YOU STILL DON’T TOUCH MY FOOD. NO FOOD FOR YOU. I’m so glad this person is old enough to vote.

  Apr 19, 2011 at 6:17 am   rating: 90  
  reply to this comment

  • #8.1   TickleMyBambo

    THEY ARE STARVING OUR COLLEGE STUDENTS!! NOT OUR COLLEGE STUDENTS!!

    Apr 19, 2011 at 1:40 pm   rating: 90  
     

  • #8.2   The Elf

    Don’t make me mark this whole crisper drawer as mine. Because I will.

    Apr 19, 2011 at 2:18 pm   rating: 90  
     

  • #8.3   TickleMyBambo

    “Is YOUR NAME The Elf?”

    Why yes! yes it is… Thanks for the free food!!

    Apr 19, 2011 at 2:28 pm   rating: 90  
     

  • #8.4   The Elf

    Elves 4 life!!!!

    Apr 20, 2011 at 8:27 am   rating: 90  
     

  • #8.5   TickleMyBambo

    Elves 4 Life!!!

    Apr 21, 2011 at 1:55 pm   rating: 90  
     
  add to this thread
   

• #9   Nunavut Guy

  Harpo and Chico colleges are far more forgiving.Zeppo house is a little out there though.

  Apr 19, 2011 at 6:39 am   rating: 90  
  reply to this comment

  • #9.1   park rose

    I’m stuck on Gummo, and I’m not cranky enough for Groucho.

    Damn, put in the wrong, email – lost my gravatar again . . .

    Apr 19, 2011 at 9:41 am   rating: 90  
     
  add to this thread
   

• #10   Kara

  If everyone was writing in crayons we might all be a bit more neighborly to each other. Instead Corporate America has instituted the ball point pen, clearly a more cut-throat option.

  Apr 19, 2011 at 9:52 am   rating: 90  
  reply to this comment

  • #10.1   The Elf

    Better the ballpoint than the fountainhead.

    Apr 19, 2011 at 11:40 am   rating: 90  
     

  • #10.2   Kara

    Very good point. Also better than the quill pen (quite possibly the most cut-throat writing utensil to date).

    Apr 19, 2011 at 12:28 pm   rating: 90  
     

  • #10.3   Title Loans

    Too bad the vast majority of things now are via e-mail or Word document. Can you imagine if you had to give a Power Point presentation in crayon font?

    Apr 19, 2011 at 3:47 pm   rating: 90  
     

  • #10.4   TickleMyBambo

    I prefer to write with Sharpie markers for reasons that I find it both colorful and that it really gets the point across when writing angry PA notes ; ).

    Apr 19, 2011 at 4:06 pm   rating: 90  
     
  add to this thread
   

• #11   briteeyesnsmile

  Ok, we’ve all seen COUNTLESS messages on this subject in/on/near/around communal food vestibules and labeled or not, I have NEVER understood people taking food that they did not furnish . . . I. Do. Not. Get. It. and I never will . . . if you didn’t put it there, DON’T EAT IT!!! Simple as that. Team Crayon.

  Apr 19, 2011 at 5:43 pm   rating: 90  
  reply to this comment
   

• #12   MMA Los Angeles

  I think Team Crayon loses credibility in the fact that they wrote in crayon. After all, how can you get angry or make a point when you’re written a note in multi-colored, pre-school handwriting? Team Passive Aggressive Response.

  Apr 19, 2011 at 5:56 pm   rating: 90  
  reply to this comment
   

• #13   divaandwriter

  Rule No. 1 of College Dormitory Living:

  Do not leave anything lying around anywhere, unless you want some douchebag to steal it.

  Rule No. 1A:

  The douchebag will always be someone you least suspect.

  Apr 20, 2011 at 9:55 am   rating: 90  
  reply to this comment
   

• #14   monica

  My 15 minutes of passive aggressive fame! Let’s just hope the crayon culprit reads this site.

  Apr 20, 2011 at 12:01 pm   rating: 90  
  reply to this comment
   

• #15   jeffry house resident

  Yup. The douchebags are always looking for free shit that they can get for free. Team Crayon has one major flaw in its ideology: if you can afford to go to a private school like Goucher, you can afford to buy/rent a minifridge. Simple as that.
  Also, leaving food in a communal fridge is just gross. What if the high/drunk/cracked up kids spit in it?

  Apr 20, 2011 at 12:09 pm   rating: 90  
  reply to this comment
   

• #16   Lisa

  That shit about unlabeled food just chaps my ass. Unless the item(s) in question is multiple, identical items (i.e. milk, eggs), then there should be no damn need to label food.

  Listen up, asshole, even if you don’t know who it DOES belong to, you sure as shit know it does NOT belong to you. If there’s half a tuna sandwich or leftover Thai food in the fridge, and you didn’t put it there, DON’T EAT IT. It is NOT yours. WTF is so damn hard about that?

  And wow. I thought it might be a good idea to read previous comments before I posted, just in case 30 people made this point before me. Turns out this is way deeper for some of you than it is for me.

  Apr 20, 2011 at 3:07 pm   rating: 90  
  reply to this comment
   

• #17   goucher student

  Goucher is a private college, but fairly cheap as they go. Just because someone goes here doesn’t mean that they can afford a minifridge. Some people go to college, including Goucher, on full scholarships.

  But seriously, this is silly.

  Apr 21, 2011 at 7:38 pm   rating: 90  
  reply to this comment

  • #17.1   brookejp

    Fairly cheap???!!!!!

    Did you go to the gouch when it was still all girls? because the price has gone up since then….

    Apr 21, 2011 at 10:12 pm   rating: 90  
     
  add to this thread
   

• #18   monica

  Goucher isn’t cheap, it’s the same price as all comparable liberal arts schools. But it gives some people good scholarships.

  Chances are if you are here on scholarship your roommate or neighbor will have a minifridge and they will let you put stuff in theirs’.

  Apr 22, 2011 at 3:17 pm   rating: 90  
  reply to this comment