The summary seems to assume a process of transformation from agrarian to industrial society, but that's not really happened in Saudi. It went from tribal/nomadic to oil kingdom. I worked with someone who grew up there and she portrayed the roles of both money and Islam differently. To her, (a devout Muslim) the real problem was the interpretation of Shariah and not Islam itself. She'd quote verses at length to support her point.

She was ambivalent the oil revenues. The money supported conservatives who sought to control women. But, it also paid for the education system, and even the conservatives thought the Quran and Sharia required women's education (unlike the Taliban). Then again, curriculum and resources were controlled by the conservatives, and segregated by gender (separate not equal). Still the educational system did provide a place for women to gather, even if later they had no jobs. Why didn't they have jobs? As an elite educated professional, she blamed the conservative interpretation of Islam, but perhaps the author is right for others in the population. Much of her experience seems to contradict the author's theory.

What about the role of immigrant labor? In Saudi the role of immigrants is significant, because the men working in the construction trade, at least as laborers, are mostly imported.

There seem to be so many exceptions to this tidy portrayal in other countries. In Japan, which had a more "traditional" transformation from agrarian to traded economies, the number of women with formal power is much lower than oil-rich Norway. Maybe it doesn't count as an example but oil-rich Alaska gives out oil dividends and is full of men but elected a woman governor.

It seems more accurate to me to say that women are more vulnerable if they live in resource rich culture that doesn't have the initial means to leverage and protect the resource. When outside interest move in to extract the resource, they will prop up the most conservative regimes to do business with. It's not oil per se, or Islam per se, or even colonialism per se. Any advances for women in Saudi Arabia, for example, will likely come with the support of a different interpretation of Islam and other internal cultural structures, the use of oil revenues, and the influence of other countries.

The character assassination of Richardson is so over-the-top. At first it was "it doesn't matter." Then it was Judas (with Hillary as Jesus, apparently). Now it's Richardson as Judas to Obama?

That's scorching already scorched earth.

This Clinton character does not deserve to be president.

Obama says Gore will be the Global Warming Czar in his administration. That's got me worried that he'll appoint Clinton as Health Care Czar. Why not Elizabeth Edwards instead, or the Edwards together? This whole thing about mandates is small potatoes, it's more about timing than anything, and not sticking it to the poor.

Seems like a good role to bring the Edwards into the effort.

But I do know more than Paul Krugman about potatoes.

I also know quite a bit more about being poor than Mr. Big Bucks New York Times. If he'd care to trade assets, I'd happily shut up on healthcare.

Thing is, I agree we need universal health care. I don't agree that we can achieve it simply by making it illegal not to have it, by sanctioning those of us without money, who have hard choices to make. What are the 50 million dollar Clintons going to do? Throw us in jail if we can't afford health care? I suppose we should all go off to Hong Kong and give a speech or two. We're so lazy.

The day Clinton and Krugman reveal their sanctions is the day I'll believe they aren't smoking potato peels. If their approach worked we could just outlaw disease and injury and not even need health care. They themselves suffer from Boomer Wishful Thinking Disease, and I don't know if it's covered.

Obama is right, 99 percent of us WANT health care coverage. Make it truly affordable and accessible, we'll buy it. Then go after the healthy/wealthy who don't opt in. Eventually, you phase in mandates.

The Age of Aquarius will descend. The potato will lie down with the lamb.

...looked suspiciously like a Bosnian sniper. Look closely--Obama gave him a Vulcan stun grip to the shoulder. Dude was instantly pacified.

Obama: Ready for Bosnian snipers from day one, 3AM.

Yeah, let's talk about cost shifting.

Like all of you (probably), I would like to see a single payer paid mostly by tax revenues (personal and business) with some relatively minor user fees as incentives or disincentives.

But here's the problem: The superrich, like the Clintons, can hide their money if they choose. The superrich, like the Clintons, can make their profits abroad. The superrich, like the Clintons, can invest in offshore business in places like the Cayman Islands.

I want the government to go after the superrich to help pay for health care. But it is easier than ever for the wealthy to hide gains. Did the Clintons pay their fair share of taxes? Who knows? Can we ever know? How can we ever get to a single player when the superrich play games like the Clintons have chosen to play? Hedge funds, offshore shell companies, etc etc--that's way beyond the ability of ordinary folks like me to understand.

Who are the Clintons to demand that we ordinary folks pay up--or else? Could some supporter of the Clinton plan please, please tell me

1. What are the sanctions.

2. How will they be enforced.

And also, how do we make sure that Clintons aren't cheating on their taxes? Why can't they invest in the USA, instead of the Cayman's, place known as a haven for tax evasion?

How can you folks say the Clintons are for universal health care when they themselves are likely dodging the taxes we need to pay for that health care?