A humble suggestion

[amicus]

sr71..."...Absolutely right, Freshface. But that doesn't suit the bias of Amicus and some others so they refuse to process that...."

~~~

My only bias is one towards reason, rationality and logic and I am proud to claim that.

Your faith, your belief, your bias against humanity, is amazing when exposed to the light of day, it withers and dies as most things that live at night do.

Ugly critters they be at that.

Ami

 

[sr71plt]

~~~

My only bias is one towards reason, rationality and logic and I am proud to claim that.

Your faith, your belief, your bias against humanity, is amazing when exposed to the light of day, it withers and dies as most things that live at night do.

Ugly critters they be at that.

Ami

My bias against humanity? Holy crap, what have you been smoking?

 

[freshface]

freshface
Experienced

~~~

Ah, fresh European socialist meat to dine on, pass the salt and pepper please and the little jar of tabasco...as the meat is a little rancid.

Upton Sinclair, eh, sure, drag out that old harbinger of doom...

As a young boy, I had a cow; I millked that cow, strained the milk, used some for the household, made butter with the cream that rose to the top and bottled a gallon in a glass gallon jug and sold it to neighbors at a competitive price below market prices, (my overhead was nil).

I kept the same customers for years. I did so because my 'product' was of high quality, fresh and clean. There developed an attitude of trust between me, my product and the consumer, all without the heavy hand and taxation by Adolph and his henchmen.

There was another kid on a neighboring farm that tried to do the same thing. But he decided to skim the cream from his milk before selling and added well water to buffer his quantity. Even though he offered his product at an even lower price than I did and took a customer or two for a while, they soon all returned to me and the kid went tits up.

If your Gestapho agencies had been in effect, the second boy would still have corrupted his product and any action they took would have been, 'after the fact', it would not stop him or any other crook from trying to take advantage of a customer, customers, or the market in general.

The entire list of benefits you tediously typed are the product of diligent creators, suppliers, manufacturers and distributors all of whom are most interest in supplying quality products at a competitive price and earning a return on their investments.

The 'regulators' play no functional role at all except to raise prices, add taxation, employ useless public employees and in general slow the efficiency of the market place.

Now, you can research the history of free enterprise and trade between humans or you can continue to believe as you wish, that men, thus, 'Capitalists' are inherently evil and must be controlled to protect the innocent public.

If you, like most on the paltry forum, believe that men are inherently bad to the bone and must be controlled and regulated, then so be it, you join a diminishing fold of fellow believers who still expect God to be waiting at the Pearly Gates.

Such a deal...


Amicus...

Sorry, Ami. Living in Germany does not make me German. Not "my Gestapo" or "my Adolph." My family was on the side of the righteous in that one. eta Suggesting that Germans today had anything to do with the Gestapo is both offensive and beneath you.

I wish I had your faith that people will always do the right thing, but I've lived in the real world for too long. Dismiss Upton Sinclair if you choose, it doesn't change the fact that big packing companies in Chicago were grinding rats, roaches and the odd employee body part into the sausages.

Your milk overhead was nil because you weren't worried about things like pasteurization. Tuberculosis rates in the late 1800s were so high that whole industries evolved around taking care of the afflicted. In 1900, it was the leading cause of death in the US, killing some 148,000 people. Now, we have animal health regulations that require the testing and eradication of cows with TB. We pasteurize the milk to remove harmful pathogens, including TB, salmonella, and E. coli. Like it or not, we have the FDA to keep everyone honest.

Your neighbor kid added water to his milk to make a buck. What if his milk had killed someone? What if the water had been laced with cholera or coliforms? When large food manufacturers cut corners, lots of people get hurt before the market adjusts. I don't know about you, but I really don't want to be the index case because a business cut corners.

Regulators keep the floor level and the players honest. I do not believe that all capatlists are bad. I do believe that some individuals will place their own good above that of the group. I also believe that there are some things necessary for the common good that can only be accomplished by the government.

 

[amicus]

Regulators keep the floor level and the players honest. I do not believe that all capatlists are bad. I do believe that some individuals will place their own good above that of the group. I also believe that there are some things necessary for the common good that can only be accomplished by the government.

~~~

I do not doubt your sincerity, FreshFace, not at all. You are indeed a 'true believer'.

Those, 'regulators' you are referring to above, are humans, quite like those individuals you believe will 'place their own good above that of the group', are you blind to the corruption in the Soviet Union where the leaders lived well and the masses starved?

You think individuals suddenly become honest and forthright wearing the mantle of government?

There are 'some' things necessary for the common good, our Constitution lays them out clearly: Military to protect the sovereignty of the nation as a whole, Police to protect and defend the enumerated rights of the people and a Court system to adjudicate differences and punish those who violate rights of others.

There are mechanisms inherent in the function of a free market place, the dreaded 'Capitalism' you folks have hated since Dickensonian times, that protect the public in far better ways than regulations, restrictions, licenses and taxation.

And yes, we live and learn by trial and error, Pasteurization and Brucellosis, and many other tried and true protections from disease, are a product of science, medical science, just like boiling water and sterilizing surgical instruments had to be learned the hard way.

You want this Utopian dream of guaranteed safety in all things provided by a father figure and I am sorry to inform you, it just ain't possible in the real world.

Take the condom off your mind, try wet sex, real thinking for a while, guarantee you will switch to the real thing.

Amicus...

 

[freshface]

Those, 'regulators' you are referring to above, are humans, quite like those individuals you believe will 'place their own good above that of the group', are you blind to the corruption in the Soviet Union where the leaders lived well and the masses starved?

I'm pretty sure that in logic class they called this the "Straw Man" fallacy. Corruption wasn't a part of this thread until now. Regulators are human, but they have rules they have to follow and supervisors to enforce them. If they wander too far off the reservation, other regulators real 'em back in.

And yes, we live and learn by trial and error, Pasteurization and Brucellosis, and many other tried and true protections from disease, are a product of science, medical science, just like boiling water and sterilizing surgical instruments had to be learned the hard way.

Correct, methods to control TB and Brucellosis were a product of scientific research. Eradicating the TB positive cattle was a government program. The cattle and dairy industries kicked and screamed every step of the way. "It's fine to talk about the common good, but hands off my prize breeding stock!"

These days, medical research is expensive and supported by government.

You want this Utopian dream of guaranteed safety in all things provided by a father figure and I am sorry to inform you, it just ain't possible in the real world.

I don't believe in Utopia or guaranteed safety. In fact, I'm pretty Libertarian in some areas. Your apparent belief that everyone would behave honorably if government would only go away is much more Utopian than my "trust but verify."

 

[foolishlittleone]

There are mechanisms inherent in the function of a free market place, the dreaded 'Capitalism' you folks have hated since Dickensonian times, that protect the public in far better ways than regulations, restrictions, licenses and taxation.

Please enumerate those mechanisms.

While you're doing that I'll gratefully drink a cup of milk that I know was produced in conformance with regulations ensuring its safety. Maybe you've heard of some recent Chinese products that were created outside of any effective health regulations. Sure, you can try to sue them if you've been affected, but what if you're dead? Or how satisfying is it to get monetary compensation for permanently damaged health?

Maybe you've also heard that nearly all businesses involved in trade of products that can have ill-effects on human health and well-being yearn for good, responsible regulations so they don't have to compete against the shysters who are only interested in a quick buck?

 

[sr71plt]

I'm still trying to figure out how you can be anti-humanity and a socialist at the same time.

 

[amicus]

Both of the newby twits above need to come out from behind your mommies skirts and your daddies firm hands and stand on your own somehow...in other words, grow up!

Instead of making your own informed decisions about products and services you purchase, you want daddy to guarantee their safety and quality. Grow up!

What you do not realize and denigrate without knowing is that when you control, restrict, regulate, contain the human mind, the human spirit, when you limit the freedom of an individual to function, you are working against your own best interests.

Your Litany, you Mantra, the chants you voice to any who will listen, is the age old collectivist dream of life without care for everyone. You only receive that as a child in the care of your parents, those of you fortunate enough to know your parents.

You live in a faith based bubble of belief that is destructive of the very nature of man and I suspect you don't even realize it.

You of the Left, are the New Christians and Catholics, reciting Vespers, or whatever, in hopes of keeping the evil of a productive and self assured man in chains.

If it were just ignorance, I would point you at educational resources to enlighten you, but it is more than that and more than a sub 100 intelligence quotient, you are mentally hampered by the blinder effect of belief.

Open your fucking eyes!

Amicus...

 

[amicus]

I'm still trying to figure out how you can be anti-humanity and a socialist at the same time.

~~~


It does not surprise me that you cannot discern the difference between the collective and the individual, not at all.

Socialism is a failed and ineffective attempt to eliminate individual choice and replace it with a collective will.

Since respect and protection of individual human life, is a very humane thing to be, that which acts against individual human life, is anti human, anti humanity, if you must.

Poor little ole Cafe' socialists want to lift the burden of thought from each person, man, woman and child, and place their lives and futures, in the hands of the collective, and that, is inhumane.

Amicus...

 

[sr71plt]

~~~


It does not surprise me that you cannot discern the difference between the collective and the individual, not at all.

Socialism is a failed and ineffective attempt to eliminate individual choice and replace it with a collective will.

Since respect and protection of individual human life, is a very humane thing to be, that which acts against individual human life, is anti human, anti humanity, if you must.

Poor little ole Cafe' socialists want to lift the burden of thought from each person, man, woman and child, and place their lives and futures, in the hands of the collective, and that, is inhumane.

Amicus...

Nothing more amusing than a half-baked pseudo intellectual.

 

[oggbashan]

Amicus, why do you persist in using ad hominem when you are losing an argument?

Your logic is badly flawed, nearly as badly as your rhetoric.

You do need refresher courses or perhaps even basic introductions to logic and rhetoric.

Og

 

[amicus]

Someone wanna take over the can of bug spray to ward off the pesky mosquitos of the left?

I got sunshine for the first time in weeks and I be gonna go talk to the earth.

Amicus...

 

[oggbashan]

Someone wanna take over the can of bug spray to ward off the pesky mosquitos of the left?

I got sunshine for the first time in weeks and I be gonna go talk to the earth.

Amicus...

If the "right" knew the rubbish you spout they'd disown you.

Some of the responses you have had are from people on the right.

Og

 

[sr71plt]

I'm sorry, but Og is right, Amicus. It's useless trying to have any sort of discussion with you, because you are always off in la la land somewhere. A very bad case of scrambled brains. I trust Freshface has now figured that out.

 

[freshface]

I'm sorry, but Og is right, Amicus. It's useless trying to have any sort of discussion with you, because you are always off in la la land somewhere. A very bad case of scrambled brains. I trust Freshface has now figured that out.

Yes, I have noticed that there's not a lot of discussing going on here. As one of the "newbie twits" mentioned above, I believe we are at the gratuitous insullt portion of the arc. When you've run out of arguements, hide behind personal attacks.

 

[amicus]

Ah, yes, my limp wristed lefties, soothe your battered ego, take your panties and run home to mama.

Like the Christian world responded to Charles Darwin when their faith was challenged, you have no where left to run and hide and nary an ounce of courage to turn and fight.

Your global warming and ozone panic proven to be false, the results of your eco consciousness has led to an energy and now a food crisis, your drive for sexual equality has destroyed not only the family structure but challenged your own sexuality, you don't know what the hell you are, gay, straight or bi. and you piss and moan in despair.

Poor babies...

Poor Ogg, sitting on his little Island, defending an empire that is no more, the pride of Europe wallowing in regrets, such a pity* (the french is more poetic) but I forget.

Tragic Europe with Russian and German fathered babies now reaching retirement age, along with American, , GI babies in England, France and Italy, along with Australia, looking for a home, no wonder you hate the Yanks, were I you, I would too!

Of course, your only recourse, the only option left in the face of my overwhelmingly rational arguments is to run and hide, stick out your tongue, yell, 'neener, neener, neener', and claim victory.

S'okay. Ain't the first time.

Look back with nostalgia at the generation spawned in the 60's and watch as it fades to jaded history with chaos as the product of your efforts.

You have just about destroyed everything you touched, but have faith, we will bail you out once again.

Amicus...the original Ugly American

 

[sr71plt]

As Og says, you seem to be confused even about basic ideology, Amicus. Defending the good intentions of public officials, as I have done here and you have disparaged, is hardly a leftist agenda. You don't seem to have any idea what you are supporting or objecting too--as usual. Scrambled brains.

 

[S-Des]

I know that some in the US see the "guvment" as their enemy. Maybe the US guvment is. The UK government isn't the people's enemy. No UK political party would change our welfare state in any major way because the concept is almost universally supported. We may moan about details and delivery but not about the broad idea of it.

What Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama are suggesting for health provision as part of their campaign would sell here if it didn't already exist. Whether it will sell in the US? I doubt it. Too many people think as you do. I don't think you are wrong in your context. I do think you are wrong when you suggest that in the UK and wider Europe we are manipulated by socialist or marxist or communist ideologies. We have a different history and live in a different society.

Og

This is a really interesting post, Og. It is not only thoughtful, but came at this a little differently than I had seen (or noticed) before. I think the argument could be made that it is precisely our, "Leave the government out of it" attitude that is our greatest strength (allowing for gains in economics, scientific advances, etc...), but there is a question to be asked if this makes people happy, or if it's worth it at the expense of the weakest among us. I could point out the imbalance in the amount of aid our system allows us to give other struggling countries, as opposed to other nations, or the advances in medicine, science, etc... but that wouldn't answer any questions...just lead to more debate.

I suppose in the end, there's the question of if this country is capable of changing it's entire thought process, and if that would be a good thing or not (and even who would be the people deciding those questions). I'll be convinced to follow a more European model the day we pass the death penalty for any government official convicted of embezzling the money meant for the needy. At the moment, it's pretty much impossible to find an example of a government program designed to help that hasn't been corrupted by some official or group (usually more than one). It leads to a great deal of distrust and I don't expect that type of behavior to change any time soon, especially when those people by and large get away with their crimes (usually by invoking a political or social mantra).

 

[amicus]

S-Des...I know you were not responding to anything I said and I apologize if I appear to be butting in, however, you raised an issue in my mind that I have been trying to address in various ways for a long time.

Not sure that I can do it properly here, but reading and re reading your post, I had the glimmer of an idea that compels me to attempt it.

There seems to be a general conclusion or state of mind that Americans, if they chose, by majority vote, could decide to change our form of government to one more amenable to the European social democracies.

First off, the United States is not a Democracy. By definition it is a representational republic with a Constitution that all laws, new and old, must be subordinate to.

Changes to the Constitution, amending it, requires a strenuous process that is seldom successful and takes many years, usually, to accomplish.

It took a goodly number of years for the Income Tax amendment, the 16th Amendment if memory serves, to be ratified and it was rejected several times as being unconstitutional.

The Social Security Act, of 1933, again, trust memory, was thought by many to be also, 'unconstitutional', I maintain that it is in opposition to the spirit and letter of our Constitution and should be repealed as I do the 1973 Supreme Court decision concerning abortion.

My point being that a simple vote of the people at an election cannot change the form of government in this country to one similar to that of European Social Democracies and I seriously doubt if even an amendment to the Constitution could accomplish that. I for one would foment revolution instantly were the issue raised.

While the rest of the world and much of this country does not cherish the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and Bill of Rights as monumental advances in human freedom and liberty, I and many others do.

There has been a continual drift to the left in American politics for generations that is disturbing to many.

You spoke of whether people would be happy, with socialized medicine and other socialist programs that Europe has embraced and I question that direction of thinking. Although the 'pursuit of happiness', is guaranteed by the Constitution, but it is the third guarantee, the first being life, the second, liberty, or freedom.

Our way of life does not permit us to sacrifice either life or liberty to achieve happiness, however you might define, 'happy', I prefer to think it is an individual decision and choice.

Sorry if I stepped on your toes, S-Des, just had to get that out of my head.

regards....

Amicus...

 

[S-Des]

Sorry if I stepped on your toes, S-Des, just had to get that out of my head.

regards....

Amicus...

Not at all. I don't disagree with most of what you said, and I think that sentiment is strong enough to fight any major change to our Constitution. The question of whether something may be better for many who don't get a fair shot now (and how that should be addressed) is very different from advocating a major overhaul to the founding documents. I think Og made some very interesting points, including the fact that the very nature of our governments is so different that we can barely understand each other's motivations and choices.

That said, there are ways to move us in a "European" direction that don't involve anything as radical as Amendments. Health care in particular could be passed by simple votes, even though it would radically alter everything about our government. I don't think that's a good thing because we've shown an inability to implement much more modest programs with any skill or without massive corruption, so any undertaking so enormous would be doomed to failure, at a terrible cost (IMHO). Medicare, Social Security, & the Department of Education have proved we aren't yet up to the task of making tough choices and raising up the lives of our fellow citizens (hence my allegiance to privatization). Unfortunately nothing is simple and we cannot just turn over the reins to corporations who have also shown a staggering disregard for the laws and people's well-being. A balance has to be struck that can work, but that balance will never be achieved while we find ourselves mired in the kind of antics we currently see in Washington (or by the people outside of it who feel that anything is acceptable, no matter how repugnant, as long as they can achieve their ultimate goals).

Until then we will continue to waste money and resources, while people who genuinely need help (and could contribute to society if that help was available) will be pushed to the side. Places like this will continue to be a battlefield where people scream at each other, but are unable to listen. It's regrettable, but hopefully not a permanent situation.

 

[amicus]

Watching the Linda McCartney Story when your post came through, very sad with her cancer and all, but fitting in a way as 'health care', and not just for the wealthy, is a crucial and critical issue.

I claim to be a theorist, a dreamer, a purist, identify it as one may, but certainly not a practical man or a politician or one who seeks or even understand compromise in political terms.

I do appreciate your gentle handling of my sometimes obnoxious rhetoric and especially in this case as the issues are so very important and personal to many.

I do not propose that their is a 'perfect' system to deal with the major issues of the time, perhaps not even an 'ideal' system to meet those needs.

Much of any and everything I advocate is premised on a single basic axiom or truism, again, define it as one may, that bedrock principle from which I can not and will not sway or compromise, and that is human individual freedom of choice.

I know the complicated arguments evolving from, 'one man's freedom ends at the tip of another man's nose', and I understand the difficulties involved in defining how men live adjacent one another without infringement.

With that tiny caveat being offered, I propose that Social Security, Education and Health Care ought properly be the province of the market place.

I think we differ in our viewpoints concerning Corporations but I choose not to pursue that at the moment rather to point to the many successful and honorable corporations that have and do exist.

While you may not think much of McDonalds or Walmart or Microsoft, I think a corporate structure based on any of those models could supply all the services I mentioned above, social security, education and health care, in ample quantity and quality to solve the problems we face as a free nation today.

Any other method or system of providing those services requires the imposition of force, through taxation or coercion or confiscation, regulation, control and restriction and I can not countenance a single one of those.

I truly present as rational and logical that if turned over to the private market place you would soon find affordable health clinics and hospitals serving the entire population on every corner. It would required a new vision for medical schools, standards and procedures and licensing practices for all in the medical profession; an abolishment of the AMA, different divisions of medical care provided, most not requiring the lengthy amount of formal education currently required but sufficient to meet the needs they served.

Japan has a highly touted national health care system, at least by PBS, which recently did a special program on it. Japanese people visit a physician three times more often than American citizens and preventative medicine is a key issue there.

Precisely and exactly what form a private market based medical system would entail I cannot say, I do not have the knowledge or foresight to predict such things.

But my understanding of human nature and the market place allows me to speak with certainty when I say the system would be a hundred times better than the current one, operate more efficiently and less expensively and most important, without the use of force or taxes.

The usual retort is, 'what about the poor, those unable to pay', and my usual reply is, they will be cared for as they always have been and always will be.

The poor are always with us but I suggest we should not build a system around them, but include them as most attornies do, in a pro bono sense of a donation to a charitable cause. We already do that in larger amounts than any nation on earth.

This is overly long and I know it, but excruciatingly brief as the subject is so large and complex, but it is all I have to give this late, late evening.

But I must add this: as much as the British and the Canadians applaud their health care systems, one can easily document the glaring faults that only worsen as time goes by. Government systems simply have never worked and by definition cannot function as intended.

I hope we do not travel that road in this country.

Amicus...

 

[oggbashan]

One of the ideas that British citizens struggle to understand is that public officials can be corrupt.

We recognise that it happens in Africa and in banana republics. It used to happen in the Eastern Bloc (and still does in some parts) but we don't expect it in advanced countries.

When it happens here it is a major scandal. Civil Servants and Local Government staff are expected to be honest and impartial. We expect the same of our politicians. If I want to sign a contract and need a witness, an established Civil Servant (no matter how lowly the grade), a Bank Manager, a Doctor or a Teacher are all considered equally trustworthy and honest.

A current furore in Parliament is about Members of Parliament employing relations as assistants, researchers etc. It all started because one MP employed his son and paid him a high salary when the son was at University and apparently doing no work at all apart from his studies. That was generally accepted as wrong but has led to a witch-hunt against MPs employing their relations.

My MP's wife is his paid assistant. Whenever I want to raise issues with him I usually get through to her - in the Constituency Office during office hours because that's where she'll be. She works far more hours than is normally expected of MP's assistants and sometimes accompanies him when he is out and about within his constituency. She works hard for her money and is an asset to our community. But is it right to employ relations? The arguments are that relations work harder and longer and know the MP better than other candidates for the assistant post. Some of the relatives are very highly qualified individuals with skills that complement the MP's other staff.

The debate about MP's relations as employees continues. The attention given to that debate shows how much we expect from our representatives. We expect them to be honest. We expect them to avoid the suspicion of dishonesty as well. That is a harder test.

One of my friends was a middle-ranking civil servant. He was found to have been over-inventive in his claims for travel expenses. Despite years of good service and the small amounts of money involved he was sacked. His managers sacked him, not because of the small fiddling of his accounts, but because they could no longer trust him. I have sacked people for similar reasons.

Most people in the UK know they can trust all their public servants to be transparently honest. They might be s-o-bs but they're honest s-o-bs.

If you get a parking ticket from a council employee in England it will be because you have committed an offence. The fine has to be paid at an office, never to the council employee. Trying to persuade the council employee to cancel the ticket is futile - the employee has to justify the cancellation to superiors and the level of proof required is high. Trying to bribe the employee is a different and far more serious offence and may end up in court. The employee may be low-paid but is responsible for public money. The standard expected from the employee is honesty.

The above paragraph does not apply where parking services have been given to contractors whose employees are not public servants. The contractors may issue different rules and have different standards. They may bend the rules to issue more parking tickets and put pressure on their employees to reach targets of fines collected.

We expect our Government to be totally honest from the Prime Minister to the lowliest employee.

Og

PS. We also struggle to accept the idea that we elect representatives on the basis of promises about what government money they will bring to our local community. Our representatives are supposed to do their best for our whole country first above local concerns. Screwing your neighbours is not good for the wider community.

 

[S-Des]

PS. We also struggle to accept the idea that we elect representatives on the basis of promises about what government money they will bring to our local community. Our representatives are supposed to do their best for our whole country first above local concerns. Screwing your neighbours is not good for the wider community.

And sadly that's the basis for most of our politicians being re-elected each term. While it isn't the only matter of importance, a research group established that Hillary had over 400 million in earmarks in the first quarter of 2008. That's when a lawmaker takes a specific bill that is important (say funding for a hospital) and attaches a bill that is a direct payback to a constituent (my favorite was $2 million added to a bill by Charlie Rangel to help fund a series of buildings named after him ). It's almost impossible to defeat since anyone voting against the hospital funding must "hate the poor and sick". It's a cynical, disgusting practice both parties employ. Obama has a milder $150 million in the first quarter (still pretty hefty for a first-term Senator), while McCain has $0 for his career (25 years). Like I said, it's not the be all end all of problems, but it does show that our lawmakers will tell the public that they are, "For the poor and downtrodden", then steal money from the taxpayers left and right (no pun intended) to pad their wallets or get themselves re-elected. It's one of the first things that endeared me to McCain.

As for your country's dilemma about hiring relatives, both the Speaker of the House and the Senate leader have children who are highly paid lobbyists (people who are given large salaries to influence lawmakers). None of the kids have any real experience to deserve the positions, so one can only assume why groups believe it's worth their while to pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars per year (each). I'm not blaming Democrats, they just happen to be in the office now (Republicans are more than happy to get high-paying jobs for friends and family). I could site you case after case of people who steal from the poor in order to line their pockets, all the while screaming that the public isn't doing enough. In Chicago it's pretty much a tradition that people get elected to office by blaming anyone who doesn't look or think like the voters, then robbing said voters blind.

Stroger hospital came very close to closing this year when County President Todd (who basically inherited the job from his father when he had a stroke...despite the fact that it was really illegal) screwed up the books so badly that they ran out of money. On the bright side, he hired his cousin to handle all the books (and gave her an enormous raise). I'm sure all the people of the inner-city are much better off since the Stroger family (not just the immediate family either) are taken care of for life.

P.S. What the Hell was this thread about in the first place?

 

[amicus]

Smiles...it was about the fallacy that government is much more honest that corporate structures.

Which I questioned as both were populated by pesky humans.

Which seem to do odd things, in and out of government.

The difference being, in the private sector, you do have to make a profit to keep the business humming...in government, you just can't get caught stealing.

ahem...

ami